Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Intoxication may serve as a defense against proving more specific forms of intent. If so, its potential effectiveness will sometimes hinge on whether the defendant's intoxication was voluntary or involuntary : the defense would be denied defendants who had voluntarily disabled themselves by knowingly consuming an intoxicating substances, but ...
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.
Strictly speaking, however, it could be argued that intoxication is not a defense, but a denial of mens rea; [10] the main difference being that a defense accepts the mens rea and actus reus of an offence are present. With intoxication, there is no acceptance of the mens rea of the offence. For offences of basic intent, the act itself is ...
Voluntary intoxication will not satisfy the criterion that there must be an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognised medical condition (s.2(1)(a) Homicide Act 1957) and therefore cannot be relied upon as grounds for the partial defence. [3]
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]
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 ...
The defense argued Reitz had a history of mental problems and was capable of being violent while asleep, but the jury didn’t buy it. Weinfurtner’s family reportedly noticed bruises on her body ...
In the latter, the defendant's intoxication will be directly relevant in forming the necessary intent. In the former, the picture is more complicated and unclear, although it is known that intoxication will not provide a defence where recklessness can be shown on the accepted facts.