Intoxication

Question 1

MPC Rule

Answer 1

“[I]intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense.” – MPC § 2.08(1)
 Intoxication does not negate recklessness. See MPC § 2.08(2). By implication, intoxication can only negate an intentional/purposeful or knowing mental state.
 Coates (Wash. 1987): intoxication is not a defense to negligence.
 Cameron (NJ 1986): “What is required is a showing of such a great prostration of the faculties that the requisite mental state was totally lacking.

Question 2

Recklessness

Answer 2

Why can recklessness not be negated by intoxication?  Register (NY 1983): “the element of recklessness itself …encompasses the risks created by defendant’s conduct ingetting drunk”
 Is depraved-heart murder merely a reckless act, or is itmore?
 Majority: recklessness plus aggrevating objectivecircumstances
 Dissent: wantonness is a different mental state somewherebetween intent and recklessness

 In Register, what is the significance of the disagreement forthe defense of intoxication?

Question 3

Montant v. Egelhoff (1996)

Answer 3

Statute prohibited the use of voluntary intoxication todetermine the existence or absence of a mental state that is anelement of a crime.

 Does the Due Process guarantee of the 14th Amendmentprohibit this statute? Look to historical practice policy reasons for the rule

 What does the statute do?/How to characterize it? Exclude relevant exculpatory evidence thus making the state’sburden easier to meet? Redefine the elements of crimes?

In this case Montant v Egelhoff 199. Lower court found that the defendant could not raise his drunkenness’ as a defense for murder and been denied due process. The supreme court reversed the decision that intoxication was a clearly relevant to the issue of murder.