Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication. Where a crime requires a certain mental state ( mens rea ) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
Intoxication in English law is a circumstance which may alter the capacity of a defendant to form mens rea, where a charge is one of specific intent, or may entirely negate mens rea where the intoxication is involuntary.
The defense argued Jeremy Cruz was too drunk to form the intent to murder his wife. The jury rejected that argument. Jury rejects intoxication defense and convicts Lacey man of murder in wife's ...
DPP v Majewski [1976] UKHL 2 is a leading English criminal law case, establishing that voluntary intoxication such as by drugs or alcohol is no defence to crimes requiring only basic intent. The mens rea requirement is satisfied by the reckless behaviour of intoxicating oneself.
A college football player arrested for drunk driving despite no signs of intoxication can make his case to a jury that the officer violated his rights, a federal judge has ruled.
Depending on jurisdiction, circumstances and crime, intoxication may be a defense, a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. However, most jurisdictions differentiate between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. [24] In some cases, intoxication (usually involuntary intoxication) may be covered by the insanity defense. [25]
Numerous attorneys have used the “Ambien defense” in cases that range from DUI to murder. Ambien is a drug used to treat insomnia. Charlie Saine, also of North Carolina, was accused of ...
The critical distinctions are that diminished capacity is a partial, negating defense (negates an element of the state's case) with the burden on the state to show that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind while insanity is a complete but affirmative defense—the defendant bearing the burden of proving that he was legally insane.