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

INTOXICATION NEGATING AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL 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).