Reese attended a college football game with some old college buddies. Even though his friends knew he often drank to excess, they permitted him to drink alcohol. Reese was intoxicated before the game and continued to drink during the game. Reese’s school did not win the football game. He and his friends retreated to a bar to continue drinking. A fan of the rival team was in the bar and jokingly teased Reese and his friends about the game. Reese became angry at the man and shoved him off of his barstool. The man stood up and attempted to walk away, but Reese continued shoving him. As Reese persisted in shoving the man, they moved in the direction of a large mirror and caused it to shatter. A shard of glass penetrated the man’s neck and he bled to death. The next day, Reese remembered going to the bar but did not remember anything after that. Under the majority rule, can Reese claim his intoxication as self-defense to murder?
- No, because a defendant’s intoxication can never be introduced as evidence for the defense.
- No, because there is no complete defense of intoxication.
- Yes, because Reese is an alcoholic, and it is unconstitutional to punish someone for such a disease.
- Yes, because Reese’s intoxication prevented him from having the capacity to form the intent to murder. (25 points). Please choose an answer from above and explain why you chose that answer.
2. No, because there is no complete defense of intoxication.
Reese cannot use his intoxication as a defense to murder because voluntary intoxication does not fall under the majority rule. Courts have consistently ruled that people who willingly consume alcohol or other intoxicants are still held responsible for their actions, even if they claim their impairment caused them to act in a manner they did not intend. A good example is the Burrows v. State (1931) (Samaha, 2016, p. 229) case. The defendant argued that he was pressured into drinking before committing a crime, but the court ruled that his actions were still voluntary because he chose to consume alcohol. Just like Reese, he willingly consumed alcohol, which means he cannot use it to negate his crime.
On the other hand, in the case People v. Penman (1915) (Samaha, 2016, p. 229), the defendant unknowingly consumed a narcotic. He ate what he thought was a breath mint, but was unfortunately wrong. In this case, because his intoxication was involuntary, it could be seen as a possible defense. Though this was not Reese’s case, he willingly consumed alcohol, so this would not apply, but if he were to “unknowingly” do so, then maybe this case could have a valid defense.
Works Cited:
Samaha, J. (2016). Criminal law (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
