Substance Intoxication Legal Meaning
In general, the defence would be denied to people with symptoms of poisoning who continued to consume the bristly drink because they should have known what was happening to them. If no other consumption had occurred, but they should have realized that they were affected by an unknown substance, the inclusion of an activity such as driving would not be part of the defence. In other words, the policies that underpin law enforcement promote the protection of the public from the interests of an individual who recklessly or willfully exposes the public to danger. It`s hard enough for people who have more experience with intoxication to identify exactly when a person is intoxicated, which is the case with bartenders. Whether or not you have lost the normal use of your mental and physical abilities, the real problem is the effectiveness of the police in their attempts to assess your level of intoxication. Intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a “disorder of mental or physical abilities resulting from the introduction of a substance into the body” § 18-1-804(4), 8B S.C.R. (1986). Intentional or self-induced intoxication is “caused by substances which the accused knows, or ought to know, tend to cause intoxication and which he has knowingly introduced or authorized into his system.” § 18-1-804(5), 8B S.C.R. (1986). Involuntary intoxication is intoxication that is not self-induced, see § 18-1-804(3), 8B S.C.R. (1986), and by definition, there is knowingly ingesting an intoxicant or ingesting a substance that is not known to be an intoxicant. See § 18-1-804(5), 8B S.C.R.
(1986); Menschen v. Turner, 680 p.2d 1290 (Colo.App.1983). Establishing a defense of voluntary intoxication is much more difficult than involuntary intoxication. By current legal standards, wilful intoxication is an applicable defense only for certain crimes, and even in these circumstances, jurors are far less likely to accept a intoxication defense if the defendant caused the intoxication on himself. If you or a loved one has been charged or arrested for impaired driving, or wrongly accused of public drunkenness, don`t wait another moment. Intoxication is a defence available to criminal accused on the basis that the defendant did not understand the nature of his actions because of the intoxication or did not know what he was doing. The intoxication defence applies in very limited circumstances and generally depends on the voluntary or unintentional nature of the intoxication and the required level of intent of the criminal complaint. In the United States, the Model Penal Code also provides for the possibility of “pathological intoxication,” in which a medical condition allows a small amount of alcohol to cause disproportionate intoxication that the drinker could not have foreseen.  Unintentional intoxication occurs when a person is induced to use a substance such as drugs or alcohol, or when a person is forced to do so. For example, a woman who has put a date rape drug in her drink without her knowledge is unintentionally intoxicated. Unintentional intoxication can also occur as a result of an allergy or the unexpected effects of a legal prescription drug. If an accused crime is a specific intentional offense, meaning that the defendant must have had the specific intent to commit the offense in question, unintentional intoxication may be a defense against criminal charges if it prevents the accused from forming the required intent.
For example, the accused may not understand the nature of his or her actions or may be considered incapable of attaining the state of mind necessary to commit the crime. A common example is the crime of aggression, which requires intent to cause harm. If a person becomes violent as a result of unintentional intoxication and commits an attack, he may be able to argue that the intoxication prevented him from forming the intention to harm. Voluntary intoxication is rarely a successful complete defense, but it can reduce guilt. In Menschen v. Turner, 680 P.2d 1290 (Colo.App.1983), the Court of Appeal considered the analogous situation of a defendant who claimed to have been involuntarily intoxicated by the misuse of a prescription drug overdose. The respondent testified that he was not warned that intoxication would occur by exceeding the prescribed dose and that he believed that excessive doses would cause sleep, not intoxication. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court`s exclusion of drug use evidence because the accused`s testimony “provided sufficient credible evidence to present the [involuntary intoxication] defence to the jury.” Turner, 680 pp.2d to 1293.
Police sometimes have difficulty conclusively proving intoxication, but usually report that a person smelled of alcohol, appeared to be intoxicated with slurred speech, or was acting intoxicated or intoxicated. In some States, a distinction is based on the type of mens rea requirement. Although intentional intoxication may not be a defense against a crime with basic intent (sometimes called “general” intent), it is permitted as a defense against crimes that require specific intent. This term refers to two different types of crimes: drunkenness under the influence of alcohol or drugs can also be a crime in itself in certain circumstances, such as impaired driving offences and public drunkenness. A distinction can be made according to whether the accused has opted for intoxication and is therefore responsible for his reduced control or not. In the Dutch Courage defence (see Gallagher in the English Intoxication Act), for example, the accused hates his wife, but is afraid to act. The defendant therefore buys a bottle of brandy and a sharp knife. In the morning, the bottle is empty and the knife is in the spouse`s heart. Since the defendant had a plan and a weakening of inhibitions by drunkenness was part of that plan, a defense against intoxication is not feasible.  However, if at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is “skewed” by someone secretly adding gin, the resulting drunkenness is not intentional and could be considered a possible defense.
A clearer distinction is made in Islamic law, where unintentional intoxication can eliminate criminal, if not financial, liability, while voluntary intoxication has no effect and the accused is treated as if sober.  Other jurisdictions also recognize it as a defence against crimes of general intent. For example, although rape is generally considered a crime of general intent, there are states where extreme intoxication can be invoked as a defence. However, the defence is unlikely to succeed in such cases without evidence that the accused was so drunk that he or she could not form the will to have sex. We all ingest alcohol differently, so what may seem intoxicated to one officer in one situation cannot be intoxicated in another. n.1) the state of consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or narcotics. In the eyes of the law, this definition may vary depending on the situation to which it applies.