Voluntary Intoxication as a Defense: A Rare but Possible Case Study

The use of voluntary intoxication as a defense in criminal cases is an unconventional path that legal practitioners often find challenging. In common law jurisdictions, voluntary intoxication generally does not excuse criminal conduct directly. However, there are scenarios where this defense might be employed and even succeed. This article explores one such sui generis case from New York State, illustrating how rare yet possible such an achievement can be.

The Case of the Young Man and the PCP

Let's recount the story of a young man who moved into a new apartment in Far Rockaway, Queens, finding himself in a series of bizarre yet enlightened moments. He had only been there for a few days and decided to get high one night, bizarrely consuming 30 dollars' worth of PCP (Phencyclidine) mixed with weed.

This decision led to a cascade of agitated and paranoid behavior. He eventually ran out of the apartment through the screen door, not by opening it but through it, as if it were a trance. The young man's agitation increased when he heard a dog barking, prompting him to retrieve a metal pipe as a defensive weapon against "the people who were chasing him." In a moment of disorientation, he crossed the city line into Nassau County.

Running down Central Avenue, a wide street with no traffic at midnight, the young man's delusions led him to believe he was still being pursued. He attempted to summon the police by setting off a burglar alarm at a nearby home, throwing the pipe like a javelin to alert the residents.

The Legal Maneuver: A Convincing Defense

The young man's defense rested on his state of intoxication. He argued that due to the influence of the PCP, he could not have formed the requisite intent to commit burglary. Intent, a key element in the charge of attempted burglary, was negated by his evidence of voluntary intoxication.

The prosecution's case hinged on the young man's actions, despite his alleged lack of protective intent or coherent plan. Nevertheless, two compelling facts bolstered his defense:

The house containing the alarm was a doctor's residence, but there was no sign indicating it as such. This detail suggested suspicion and confusion from the detective. Weather conditions in March were cold; the young man was only wearing a T-shirt and sweatpants, without shoes or socks, leading to the intriguing hypothesis of a self-created delusion.

The Outcome and Lesson for Future Lawyers

The acquittal in this case hinged on these details and the young man's mental state at the time of the alleged crime. While such cases are rare, they serve as valuable case studies for aspiring and experienced lawyers alike. The experience of visiting the scene of the alleged crime was crucial to the successful cross-examination of the detective and the doctor.

More broadly, this case demonstrates the challenges and intricacies of using voluntary intoxication as a defense. Acquittals are often unusual, underscoring the importance of specific, unique facts to support such claims.

Conclusion

In summary, while using voluntary intoxication as a defense is a challenging path, it is not impossible. The case of the young man who moved into a new apartment in Queens and got high one night, ultimately leading to an acquittal through a sui generis set of circumstances, illustrates the rare but real possibility of success in such a defense.

Final Notes for Aspiring Trial Lawyers

To excel in this kind of case, it is crucial to deeply understand the facts, maintain a clear and compelling narrative, and leverage the physical environment and its elements to your advantage. Witnessing the scene firsthand can be incredibly beneficial, as it adds a layer of depth to your preparation and questions.