Defense to criminal charges committed while someone intoxicated

INTOXICATION
NEGATING AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (N.J.S.A. 2C: 2-8a)

There is
evidence in this case concerning the use by the defendant of (intoxicant )
(prior to and) on the day in question.

Generally
a defendant is not relieved of criminal responsibility because he/she is found
to have acted under the influence of an intoxicating beverage (or drugs). The
general assumption is that every person is normal and is possessed of ordinary
faculties. The State need not prove that the defendant was sober.

You may
consider the evidence as to defendant's consumption of alcoholic beverages (or
drugs, if appropriate) in determining whether he/she was intoxicated to such a
degree that he/she was incapable of acting (purposely or knowingly).

Therefore,
once there is some evidence of defendant’s intoxication, the State must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that such intoxication did not render defendant
incapable of acting (purposely or knowingly).

Intoxication
under our law means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting
from the introduction of substances into the body. [N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8e(1)].

In
considering the question of intoxication, you should carefully distinguish
between the condition of mind which is merely excited by intoxicating-drink (or
drugs) and yet capable of acting with (purpose or knowledge), and the condition
in which one's mental faculties are so prostrated as to deprive one of
(his/her) will to act and ability to reason, thereby rendering a person
incapable of acting and thus preventing the person from committing the crime
charged with the mental state required of either (purposely or knowingly).

This
distinction is important because, as explained, whether or not the defense of
intoxication applies is a factual determination to be made by you.

You may
also consider, along with all the other evidence, the degree of intoxication in
determining whether or not the defendant was capable of acting with (purpose or
knowledge) to commit the crime charged.

You will
recall that I explained to you the elements of (crime), one of those elements
was that defendant had to act with (purpose or knowledge).

Revised 10/18/05

1
See
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1), State v. Stasio, 78 N.J. 467 (1979), and State v. Maik,
60 N.J. 203, 215 (1972).

NOTE: Self-induced intoxication can only reduce murder to aggravated manslaughter
or manslaughter.

Page 1
of 2

INTOXICATION
NEGATING AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
(N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8a)

(DEFINE PURPOSELY
OR KNOWINGLY)

If after
considering all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether defendant's
intoxication was such as to render (him/her) incapable of acting (purposely or
knowingly), then you must acquit (him/her) of (crime).

If,
however, the State has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense
does not apply, and that the State has proven all of the elements of (crime)
previously defined for you beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant guilty.

Page 2
of 2

EFFECT OF
INTOXICATION ON JURY'S CONSIDERATION OF LESSER OFFENSES INVOLVING RECKLESSNESS1
(N.J.S.A. 2C: 2-8b)

I have
already explained that evidence that the defendant ingested [intoxicant(s)] may
be considered by you in determining whether the State has proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted purposely or knowingly with respect
to the offense(s) of offense(s) requiring purpose or knowledge to which
intoxication defense applies) .

I have
also explained that if you find the State has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with purpose or knowledge, you must
go on to consider whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the
elements of (lesser included offense(s) requiring reckless mental state) .

In
determining whether the State has proven that the defendant acted recklessly,2
you are not to consider whether the defendant's use of [intoxicant(s)]
prevented him/her from consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable
risk. You are not to consider whether the use of [intoxicant(s)] made the
defendant unaware of a risk of which he/she would have been aware if he/she had
been sober. In other words, the State does not have to prove that the defendant
was, in fact, aware of the risk. Rather the State need only prove that the
defendant would have been aware of the risk if he/she has been sober at the
time of the offense. This means that if you find that the defendant was
intoxicated, you are not to consider his/her actual intoxicated mental state in
determining whether he/she acted recklessly. Instead, you are to view
defendant's conduct as if he/she had been sober, and determine whether he/she
would have been aware of a risk of such a nature and degree that, considering
the nature and purpose of the defendant's conduct and the circumstances that
would have been known to him/her had he/she been sober, the disregarding of
such risk involved a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable
person would observe in the defendant's situation.3

The
language of this charge is taken directly from State v. Warren, 104 N.J. 571,
577, 578 (1986).

Placement
of this charge will depend on the facts of the case. For example, in a murder
case, if aggravated

manslaughter
and manslaughter are appropriate lesser included offenses irrespective of the
introduction of

Intoxication
evidence, the basic 2C: 2-8a self-induced intoxication charge might
appropriately be placed after the charges on murder, aggravated manslaughter and manslaughter, with this
charge placed directly after the 2C: 2-8a self-induced charge. If, however, the sole basis for submitting the lesser
included offenses is the evidence of intoxication, the 2C: 2-8a self-induced intoxication charge should be
placed after the murder charge but before the charges on aggravated manslaughter and manslaughter and this charge should
be placed after the aggravated manslaughter
and manslaughter instructions.

2 3

It is
presumed that recklessness has already been explained to the jury. See N.J.S.A.
2C:2-2b(3).