Utah Criminal Defense - Salt Lake Criminal Attorney
76-2-306 - Voluntary Intoxication as an Affirmative Defense
in Utah
Voluntary intoxication can, in certain circumstances, form a complete
defense to a criminal prosecution under Utah law. But these cases are
rare, and the assistance of an experienced criminal attorney can be
critical.
Based in Salt Lake City,
criminal defense attorney Stephen Howard has
spent his
career defending the rights of individuals who are being
prosecuted for crimes in Utah. He has extensive experience in cases
ranging from the most serious
felony charges to minor
misdemeanor
offenses.
Contact us today to arrange for an initial consultation.
Voluntary Intoxication - Negating the Required Mental State
Just getting drunk and doing something stupid does not create a defense
to criminal prosecution. The affirmative defense provided by Utah's
voluntary intoxication statute creates only a narrow defense. But if
the elements of the defense are met, then voluntary intoxication can
form a complete defense to a criminal charge.
In order to serve as a defense to a criminal charge, evidence must show
that the intoxication was of such a kind and degree that it negated the
mental state element of the offense. Consider the following
hypothetical example:
Abe has spent the
evening socializing at a bar, and has had several drinks. As he is
preparing to leave, Abe looks around for his phone, but mistakenly
picks up Beth's cell phone and walks out the door. Shortly thereafter,
Beth realizes that Abe has taken her phone, and calls the police to
report the theft. The police locate Abe a few minutes later, and demand
that he show them what he has in his pockets. Abe, still in an
intoxicated state, pulls the phone from his pocket. Beth identifies it
as her phone, and Abe is taken into custody by police for committing
the crime of theft.
In the above-described scenario, the evidence supports all of the
required elements of a
theft charge: Abe took control over the property
of another person; such control was not authorized by the owner; and a
jury could infer from these facts that Abe intended to deprive the
owner of that property. If this is the only evidence that is presented at
trial,
then a jury would likely convict Abe of theft.
If, however, a resourceful defense attorney were able to present
evidence that Abe was intoxicated at the time the alleged theft
occurred, and that as a result of his intoxication Abe believed that
the phone he took was in fact his own phone, then a jury could find Abe
not guilty under Utah's voluntary intoxication defense. Under such a
scenario, Abe's voluntary intoxication caused him to not realize that
he was taking another person's phone, and could negate the statutory
element of having the "purpose to deprive the owner thereof"
Most criminal charges under the Utah Code require evidence that
the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with
criminal negligence. If recklessness or criminal negligence are the
only
mens rea requirements under a criminal statute, and if the
defendant is unaware of a risk because of voluntary intoxication, then
his lack of awareness is considered immaterial in a prosecution for
that offense. In other words, voluntary intoxication is not a defense
where recklessness or negligence are the required mental state elements
of an offense. Consider the following hypothetical scneario.
Charlie has
been drinking - perhaps just a bit too much. In his
intoxicated state, Charlie goes to his apartment building, accidentally
gets off the elevator on the wrong floor, and walks down the hall.
Approaching what he believes to be his apartment, Charlie opens the
unlocked door, stumbles through the doorway, and passes out on the
floor. About an hour later, Dawn (in a completely sober state) comes
home, and discovers a strange man lying on the floor of her apartment,
just inside the door. Dawn runs back down the hallway, and calls the
police from her cell phone. Police respond, and arrest Charlie on
suspicion of burglary and trespass. After screening the case,
prosecutors determine that there is not enough evidence to support the
burglary charge, but file a class A misdemeanor residential trespass
charge against Charlie in the district court.
In the above-described scenario, there is sufficient evidence to
support all of the elements of a criminal
trespass charge against
Charlie. A common element of any trespass charge is unlawfully entering
or remaining on property. This element is satisfied, because Charlie
does not have permission to be in Dawn's apartment. In addition to
unlawful entry, a trespass charge may be supported by evidence of at
least one additional element.
One
variation of trespass requires evidence that the defendant intended
cause annoyance or injury to any person. Under this variation,
voluntary intoxication would form a defense to Charlie's actions,
because as a result of his intoxication, he did not realize that he was
in the wrong apartment.: he has unlawfully entered the dwelling of
another person.
But there is another variation of trespass that requires only proof
that the defendant was "reckless as to whether his presence will cause
fear for the safety of another." Because this element requires only
proof that the defendant was reckless, voluntary intoxication does not
form a defense. A prosecutor would likely argue for conviction based on
the theory that Charlie's actions recklessly caused Dawn to fear for
her safety when she came home and found a stranger in her apartment.
(Consider, however, that Charlie could still potentially raise a
mistake of fact defense.)
In Charlie's situtation, his conduct could also be seen as
forming the basis of a public intoxication charge. Such is likely to
occur in many voluntary intoxication defense cases. In raising the
defense of voluntary intoxication, a defendant may expose himself to
the risk of prosecution for a
public intoxication charge. But if the
charges being faced are serious, it is well worth considering the
viability
of a voluntary intoxication defense.
Statutory Language for Utah's Voluntary Intoxication Defense
As of 2014, Utah's voluntary intoxciation defense statute (76-2-306)
reads as follows: "Voluntary intoxication shall not be a defense to a
criminal charge unless such intoxication negates the existence of the
mental state which is an element of the offense; however, if
recklessness or criminal negligence establishes an element of an
offense and the actor is unaware of the risk because of voluntary
intoxication, his unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that
offense."
Choosing a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney in Salt
Lake City

Based
in Salt Lake City,
criminal attorney Stephen Howard provides legal
services to clients throughout Utah. His
track record include not
guilty verdicts, dismissals, and appellate reversals in some of the
most serious charges on the books in Utah. If you are facing
prosecution for a crime in Utah, you need an experienced criminal
defense lawyer on your side.
Contact us today to arrange
for an initial confidential consultation.
RELATED CRIMINAL CODE SECTIONS