Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio (1986) established that states may make justification an affirmative defense, placing the burden of proof on defendant. [ 1 ] : 18 Patterson v. New York (1977) established that states may make excuses, such as involving mental state, an affirmative defense, rather than part of the mens rea element the prosecution must prove beyond a ...
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.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
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 ...
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]
Settled insanity is defined as a permanent or "settled" condition caused by long-term substance abuse and differs from the temporary state of intoxication.In some United States jurisdictions, "settled insanity" can be used as a basis for an insanity defense, even though voluntary intoxication cannot, if the "settled insanity" negates one of the required elements of the crime such as malice ...
Case Ruling Right 1962 Robinson v. California: A state cannot make a person's status as an addict a crime; only behaviors can be criminal. 1st 1968 Powell v. Texas: Similarly to Robinson v. California, a state may not criminalize the status of alcoholism itself; the state may only prohibit behaviors. 8th
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification.