FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 256 Table of Contents

256.5 Intoxication, Involuntary

    256.5.1 Involuntary Intoxication Defined
    256.5.2 Involuntary Intoxication: Actual Or Constructive Knowledge Of Potential Intoxicating Effect
    256.5.3 Involuntary Intoxication: Burden Does Not Shift To Defendant
    256.5.4 Involuntary Intoxication May Be Complete Defense Or May Reduce Offense By Negating Required Mens Rea
    256.5.5 Involuntary Intoxication: Applies To Prescription Medicine
    256.5.6 Involuntary Intoxication Short Of Insanity (Unawareness Of Acts Or Consequences) May Still Negate Specific Intent

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: When appropriate an explanatory instruction may be necessary so the jury understands the meaning of involuntary intoxication.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Involuntary intoxication may provide a defense when it negates a required element of the offense.  (Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 65(a)(1) [Involuntary Intoxication]; see also LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 4.10(f) [Involuntary Intoxication as a Defense], p.559-60; People v. Turner (CO 1983) 680 P2d 1290, 1292-93 [discussion of effects of overdose of prescribed medication on whether the resulting intoxication was voluntary or involuntary]; People v. Caulley (MI 1992) 494 NW2d 853, 859; State v. Gardner (UT 1993) 870 P2d 900, 902 [involuntary intoxication refers to intoxication resulting from medicine that was prescribed or administered by physician; it may also include intoxication caused by fraud, artifice, contrivance, or force of another].)

    For example, in Jones v. State (OK 1982) 648 P2d 1251, 1258, the following analysis of involuntary intoxication was provided: "involuntary intoxication 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. An involuntary intoxication defense is available where the intoxication results from:

    1)  fraud, trickery or duress of another;

    2)  accident or mistake on his own part;

    3)  a pathological condition;

    4)  ignorance as to the effects of prescribed medication.

    The question of whether the defendant’s intoxication was involuntary is a fact question for the jury."

    Hence, when appropriate under the evidence presented, the jury should be instructed on the definition of involuntary manslaughter as a complete defense to the charges.

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.9.11 [Intoxication And Criminal Liability].

    Involuntary intoxication is a state of intoxication that has been induced, [under duress on the part of another] [by force of another] [by ignorance of the character or effect of the medication or other substances taken, whether the ignorance results from the defendant’s own innocent mistake or from fraud/trickery of another] [by _______________ (insert other cause)].

[See OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, OUJI-CR 8.42 [Involuntary Intoxication Defined] p. 477 (Oklahoma Center for Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. 1997 Supp.).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: Without special instruction the jury may not understand the knowledge requirement necessary to make intoxication voluntary.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Model Penal Code § 2.08(5)(b) (1962) defines self induced intoxication as "intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know ...." [Emphasis added.] Under this definition, if the defendant does not actually know of the potential intoxicating effect, the intoxication is involuntary unless "a reasonable person [in the defendant's] condition would ... have known that taking [the substance] would have caused intoxication." (People v. Chaffey (CA 1994) 25 CA4th 852, 857 [30 CR2d 757]; see also LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 4.10, p. 558-60.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 91.3.15 [Escape: Additional Defenses And Defense Theories].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

NOTES: See FORECITE National™ 91.3.14 [Escape: Defense Theory That Reasonable Person Would Not Have Known He/She Was In Custody] for model instruction requiring jury to determine constructive knowledge based upon a reasonable person "in defendant's situation."

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.9.11 [Intoxication And Criminal Liability].

    Intoxication of a person is voluntary if it results from the willing use of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other substance, knowing that it is capable of an intoxicating effect or when a reasonable person in the same situation would have known that taking the [liquor] [drug] [substance] would cause intoxication.

[See CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, CALJIC 4.22 [Voluntary Intoxication--Defined] p. 196(West, 6th Ed. 1996).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: Since the evidence of intoxication is often presented by the defendant, the jury may improperly assume that the defendant has the burden to prove involuntary intoxication.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: When an issue of involuntary intoxication is generated by the evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) the absence of involuntary intoxication or (2) the absence of a causal relation between the involuntary intoxication and the defendant’s conduct. (See State v. Rice (ME 1977) 379 A2d 140, 145; but see State v. Sette (NJ 1992) 611 A2d 1129, 1143-44 [defendant has burden to prove temporary insanity based on involuntary intoxication from pesticides].)

    Hence, when the jury is instructed on involuntary intoxication it should also be reminded that the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty.  (See Joseph & LaMonica, LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 6.04, comments [Involuntary Intoxication] p. 60 (West, 1994).)

    See also FORECITE National™ 250.4.4 [Defense Theory Which Negates Element Of The Offense: No Burden Of Proof On The Defendant].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.9.11 [Intoxication And Criminal Liability].

    To convict the defendant the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, either (a) that the defendant’s intoxication was voluntary or (b) that the defendant’s intoxication, though voluntary, was not a cause of the defendant’s conduct at issue in this proceeding.

[See State v. Rice (ME 1977) 379 A2d 140, 145; see also Alexander, MAINE JURY INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL 6-48 [Instruction 49--Involuntary Intoxication] p. 6-59 (Lexis, 1999).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: Without clarifying instruction, the standard pattern instruction on involuntary intoxication may prevent the jury from considering the involuntary intoxication evidence on issues other than complete exoneration.

RATIONALE: Even if defensive evidence is insufficient to prove the primary defense theory, that same evidence must still be considered in deciding if the prosecution has proven all of the elements of the offense and if any other defense theories negated any elements of the offense. (See e.g., FORECITE National™ 16.3.1 [Jury Must Consider All Of The Evidence].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 92.7.3.3 [Intentional Murder: Impact Of Provocation And Heat Of Passion/Hot Blood On Premeditation And Deliberation].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1; 4.5].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.9.11 [Intoxication And Criminal Liability].

    Even if you find that the defendant should be criminally liable for [his] [her] conduct notwithstanding the evidence of involuntary intoxication, you must still consider that evidence in deciding whether the defendant formed the intent to ______________ (insert required intent, e.g., to kill) and the mental state of _______________ (insert required mental state, e.g., premeditation and deliberation).

[Source: FORECITE National™.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: A defense theory instruction may be necessary to assure the jury understands that intoxication is involuntary if it results from prescription medicine taken as prescribed.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Intoxication is involuntary when the defendant experiences an unusual or unexpected reaction to prescription medicine. (See State v. Gilcrist (WA 1976) 552 P2d 690, 692; see also People v. Turner (CO 1983) 680 P2d 1290, 1293 [defendant entitled to have jury determine whether intoxication, due to overdose of drug prescribed for relief from migraine headaches, was involuntary where defendant's past experience suggested that the amount taken would not cause intoxication]; City of Minneapolis v. Altimus (MN 1976) 238 NW2d 851, 857-58 [error to reject requested instruction regarding involuntary intoxication when defendant experienced an unusual and unexpected reaction to valium prescribed for treatment of a back problem].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.7 [Voluntary Intoxication: Jury Must Not Consider Impact Of Prescription Drugs In Deciding Whether Intoxication Was Voluntary].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

USE NOTE: When there is evidence of unconsciousness resulting from the ingestion of prescription medicine, the court should instruct upon the defense of unconsciousness. (See FORECITE National™ 256.9 [Unconsciousness].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

Annotation, When Intoxication Deemed Involuntary So As To Constitute a Defense To Criminal Charge, 73 ALR3d 195.

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.9.11 [Intoxication And Criminal Liability].

    Intoxication which results from prescription medicine taken as prescribed is involuntary intoxication.

[Source: FORECITE National™.]

    A state of intoxication that was caused by ignorance of the character or effect of a medication is involuntary intoxication.  The intoxication is involuntary regardless of whether the defendant's ignorance resulted from the defendant's own mistake or from the fraud or trickery of another.

[Cf. OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, OUJI-CR 8-42 [Involuntary Intoxication Defined] p. 477 (Oklahoma Center for Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. 1997 Supp.)]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: Miller v. State (Fla. 2001) 805 So2d 885 held that the trial court committed reversible error in denying involuntary intoxication instruction, independent of insanity instruction, on specific-intent crimes of armed burglary and shooting into a building. The defendant committed crimes within hours after release from intensive opiate detoxification program that included medications and anesthesia. Court gave accurate instruction on insanity by involuntary intoxication, which could result in outright acquittal, but not on separate defense of involuntary intoxication, which could result in guilt of lesser included, general intent crimes. While insanity requires defendant either not be aware of his actions or their consequences or whether his actions were wrong, involuntary intoxication defense merely requires that defendant be unable to form specific intent to commit crime.