Also known as:drunken · drunk · intoxication · public intoxication
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
1
in criminal law
A disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body. The condition supplies a defense to criminal liability only when it prevents formation of an essential mental element of the offense.
2
Sense 1
1
in criminal law
A disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body. The condition supplies a defense to criminal liability only when it prevents formation of an essential mental element of the offense.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Sense 2
2
in contract law
A state of impaired understanding or judgment caused by alcohol or drugs. The condition renders contractual duties voidable when the other party has reason to know that the intoxicated person could not understand the transaction or act reasonably with respect to it.
Sources & Authorities· 1 source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A state of impaired understanding or judgment caused by alcohol or drugs. The condition renders contractual duties voidable when the other party has reason to know that the intoxicated person could not understand the transaction or act reasonably with respect to it.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Examples5
Theft Charge After Office Celebration
Deanna Davenport consumed champagne and anti-anxiety medication at an after-hours trading-floor event. She then authenticated with her own credentials, selected a specific client account, and executed multiple high-risk trades that produced large losses. The next morning she recalled selecting the account and confirming the orders. Because her sequential and targeted actions demonstrated the purposeful mental state required for theft, the intoxication did not negate an element of the offense.
Private Conduct and Intoxication Claim
Derek Douglas was arrested in his home after officers observed conduct while he was visibly intoxicated. He argued that the prosecution violated substantive due process by criminalizing private acts committed under the influence. The court rejected the claim, holding that the intoxication did not transform the conduct into a protected liberty interest.
Bowers v. Hardwick478 U.S. 186 (1986)
Vehicle Search After Traffic Stop
Daphne Doyle was stopped for erratic driving and appeared intoxicated. Officers searched the passenger compartment and found contraband. She moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search exceeded the scope permitted during an investigative stop. The court upheld the search because the intoxication supplied an objective basis for concern that weapons might be present.
Michigan v. Long463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
Mandatory Sentence for Repeat Offense
Demetrius Douglas was convicted of a serious offense committed while intoxicated and received a lengthy mandatory term. He challenged the sentence as grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The court upheld the penalty, finding that the intoxication did not reduce the gravity of the conduct or render the punishment unconstitutional.
Harmelin v. Michigan501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)
Sufficiency Review of Intoxication Evidence
Deborah Dunn was convicted of an offense after the prosecution introduced evidence that she had been drinking. On appeal she argued that no rational trier of fact could have found the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court examined the record as a whole and concluded that the evidence of purposeful conduct, despite the intoxication, was constitutionally sufficient.
Jackson v. Virginia443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979)
Frequently Asked3
When does intoxication negate an element of an offense under the Model Penal Code?+
Intoxication negates an element only when it actually prevents formation of the required mental state at the time of the conduct. Deliberate steps such as logging into a system with personal credentials and selecting a particular account demonstrate purpose even after consumption of alcohol and medication.
Supporting sources
Is self-induced intoxication ever an affirmative defense?+
Self-induced intoxication supplies an affirmative defense only when it is pathological or not self-induced and the actor then lacks substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform conduct to law. Ordinary voluntary consumption of alcohol or prescribed medication does not qualify.
Supporting sources
How does intoxication affect consent in sexual-offense prosecutions?+
Consent is ineffective when given by a person who, by reason of intoxication, is manifestly unable or known by the actor to be unable to make a reasonable judgment about the nature or harmfulness of the conduct. Nodding or walking does not necessarily overcome evidence of substantial impairment shown by dizziness, disorientation, and high blood-alcohol level.
Supporting sources
Examples1
Recording Contract Signed at After-Party
Dwight Dorsey attended a label after-party while heavily intoxicated. A representative urged him to sign an exclusive multi-album memorandum and handed him the document. Dorsey signed while laughing and unsteady on his feet. Because the representative had reason to know of the intoxication and its effect on Dorsey's ability to understand the transaction, the resulting contractual duties are voidable at Dorsey's option.
Frequently Asked1
Does visible intoxication at signing make a contract voidable?+
A contract is voidable when the other party has reason to know that intoxication prevented the signer from understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction or from acting reasonably with respect to it. Slurred speech and multiple cocktails observed by the representative supply that reason to know.
Supporting sources
478 U.S. 186 (1986)Constitutional Law
…Id., at 667 . In Powell v. Texas , 392 U. S. 514 (1968), where the Court refused to extend Robinson to punishment of publicdrunkenness by a chronic alcoholic, one of the factors relied on by JUSTICE MARSHALL, in writing the plurality opinion, was that Texas had not "attempted to regulate appellant's behavior in the privacy…
ContractsFormation of contracts · Mutual assent (including offer and acceptance, and unilateral, bilateral, and implied-in-fact contracts)UBEIntermediate