Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
11. In a jurisdiction that follows the common-law rules concerning admissibility of evidence of intoxication, the evidence of the employee's intoxication should be
During an altercation between a boss and her employee at a company picnic, the boss suffered a knife wound in her abdomen and the employee was charged with assault and attempted murder. At his trial, the employee seeks to offer evidence that he had been drinking at the picnic and was highly intoxicated at the time of the altercation.
You can choose some answers
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. At common law, voluntary intoxication can be the basis for a defense to a specific intent crime if the intoxication negated the requisite mens rea of the offense. In this case, the employee is charged with assault and attempted murder, both of which are specific intent crimes. Assault requires the intent to commit a battery or the intent to create a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Attempted murder requires proof that the employee had the intent to kill his boss and took substantial steps toward the commission of the offense. If the employee was unable to form the intent to commit a battery or the intent to commit a murder due to his intoxication, he would have a valid defense to the charge. The evidence of the employee's intoxication should be admitted without limitation.
B is also correct. The assault was actually brought to fruition by the commission of the battery. By stabbing his boss, the employee did not merely commit an assault; he committed criminal battery. The charge of assault would thus merge into the battery offense, and the evidence of the intoxication should be admitted only to the attempted murder charge.
C is incorrect. The evidence of intoxication may negate the employee's intent to commit the murder and should be admitted for that purpose.
D is incorrect. Similarly, because the evidence of the intoxication could negate the mental state requirement of the assault charge and the attempted murder, it should be admitted as to both. However, it is also possible that the assault charge merged into a battery, and the evidence of the intoxication should only be admissible to the attempted murder charge.