Intoxication Defense Essay Example

that the mens rea was not present and the accused was incapable of meeting the criminal criteria. The difficulty in examining voluntary intoxication and what level someone should be held responsible is questioned by many. It should be appropriate to expect that a person using any substance, particularly illegal substances, knows that it will have adverse impact on their ability to act responsibly. In a case in North Carolina, an uncle sexually abused his niece and was an alcoholic.

In this case the uncle did not use it as a defense but rather appealed the conviction claiming it was omitted as a jury instruction. Luckily, the reviewing court determined that all of the other circumstances surrounding the continuous incidents did not amount to the voluntary intoxication. Pre-planning of time together and using a ruse to lure the niece were overt signs that the jury instruction was not warranted. (Welty, 2011) Involuntary Intoxication The circumstance where a person does not knowingly consume or introduce the intoxicating substance can put forward the defense of involuntary intoxication.

Under common law this defense may result from: coerced intoxication, innocent mistake, unexpected intoxication or pathological intoxication. The Model Penal Code (MPC) simplifies this definition and distinguishes three types: voluntary, pathological and involuntary. (Garland, 2012) Coerced intoxication is introduced through some sort of duress or coercion causing the need to commit the offense. Innocent mistake is when the individual is tricked or unwittingly takes a substance causing the situation.

Unexpected intoxication could result from an adverse reaction to a prescribed medication, even at the appropriate dosage. Pathological intoxication is when the individual is impacted significantly more than reasonable

based upon the amount of consumption. The MPC utilizes voluntary however, incorporates coerced and innocent mistake into the involuntary category. Pathological remains the same for the MPC. STATE v. MARIN In the case of STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kyle Anthony MARIN, Appellant. No. 07-2068, Kyle Marin appealed that involuntary intoxication is a complete defense for his case.

Kyle Marin had surrendered to police in 2006 claiming he was responsible for two murders. The investigation began and showed that the evidence supported this assertion by Marin. In this case Marin claimed he was under the influence of an intoxicant and/or prescription drug. In this case Marin took several Zoloft pills and consumed large quantities of alcohol. Additionally, he had a history of depression and substance abuse problems. The courts rejected his claim and upheld his convictions all the way to the Supreme court. Example of Involuntary Intoxication

A group of friends are at a bar and an unknown person slips a drug into one of the group member’s drink. The drug then has the effect of causing a rage response similar to PCP. This person then commits a series of crimes at the bar and is ultimately arrested. Later, a person comes forward and provides irrefutable evidence of the circumstances surrounding this case. This would be an opportunity for the defendant to be cleared of wrongdoing. However, the person that is now implicated in the drugging of the individual would likely find themselves responsible for all of the other charges as well.