W5 - Intoxication Flashcards
What will extreme self-intoxication do for criminal liability?
can negate the actus reus of a general intent offence; however, self-induced intoxication falling short of automatism/extreme intoxication is not a defence to general intent crimes
What does mild intoxication do for criminal liability?
Absolutely nothing
For crimes of general intent
defense is allowed where accused can show on a balance of probabilities that he was in a state of extreme intoxication akin to automatism or insanity
What defines a crime of specific intent, what what kind of intoxication can be a defence for it?
specific intent crimes are those where the mental element involves some sophistication of thought, to the point that intoxication may negate the existence of a guilty state of mind (more than mild intoxication, but less than akin to automatism)
For the charge of murder, would proving intoxication result in acquittal?
No. It would only lower the charge to manslaughter.
Define mild intoxication
-this is where there is alcohol induced relaxation of both inhibitions and socially acceptable behaviour… this has never been accepted as a factor or excuse in determining whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea
Define advanced intoxication
this occurs where there is intoxication to the point where the accused lacks specific intent, to the extent of an impairment of the accused’s foresight of the consequences of his or her act sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea… a defence based on this level of intoxication applies only to specific intent offences (such as murder and robbery). The onus is on the Crown (as it usually is) to show the mens rea is proven.
Define extreme intoxication
negates voluntariness and thus is a complete defence to criminal responsibility. If the offence is one of general intent, then only self-induced intoxication, which is akin to automatism or mental disorder, will excuse. Such a defence would be extremely rare, and by operation of section 33.1 CC limited to nonviolent types of offenses. Onus is on the accused to establish this claim on the balance of probabilities.
Can extreme intoxication operate as a defence to murder?
No. Only to non-violent offences
For intoxication, who bears the burden of proof?
The Crown must prove the accused was not intoxicated to the point of caveating the mens era element
What 3 conditions must be met for the rules f intoxication to apply?
The accused was intoxicated at the material time;
The intoxication was self-induced; and
The accused departed from the standard of care of the reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian Society by interfering or threatening to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person
How does a court determine if an offence has a specific/gneeral intent requirement?
look to jurisprudence. Or elects set out in Davult
What defines a general intent crime?
The mental element simply relates to the performance of an illegal act. They do not require an intent to bring about certain consequences that are external to the actus reus
What defines a specific intent crime?
specific intent offences contain a heightened mental element. That element may take the form of an ulterior purpose, or it may entail actual knowledge of certain circumstances or consequences, where the knowledge is the product of more complex thought and reasoning processes
