In jurisprudence, involuntary intoxication is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminallyliable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated (with some sort of drug) against their will. Courts rarely find voluntary intoxication to be an acceptable defense. Some statutes have formally stated that voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense.
Involuntaryintoxication is a complete defense where the defendant is so intoxicated that he is unable to distinguish between right and wrong, the same standard as applied in an insanity defense.
Involuntaryintoxication is solely a claim that the person, without personal culpability for the intoxication, was so intoxicated at the particular time as to be unable to know right from wrong, or the nature and consequences of his acts.
In this latter instance, the appropriate defense is insanity, not involuntaryintoxication.
Involuntaryintoxication never exists where the person intoxicated knows what he is drinking, and drinks the intoxicant voluntarily, and without being made to do so by force or coercion.
Involuntaryintoxication is no defense or excuse for the commission of crime, but in a prosecution for murder may be considered by the jury, only for the purpose of determining whether or not the accused, at the time of the homicide, was capable of forming and entertaining a premeditated design to effect death.
In fact, involuntaryintoxication is a very rare thing, and can never exist where the person intoxicated knows what he is drinking, and drinks the intoxicant voluntarily, and without being made to do so by force or coercion.
Feeds |
Contact