the actual crime charged, voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense to any crime. However, it may be accustomed negate the intent needed to commit a criminal offense. Thus, most jurisdictions enable a litigant to use voluntary intoxication as a defense to specific intent crimes solely. Thus if the litigant is charged with a general intent crime, he cannot use voluntary intoxication as a defense in the slightest degree. For example, In the People v. Hood, 1 Cal. 3d 444 (1969).
Jurisdictions that permit voluntary intoxication as a defense to specific intent crimes creates this to be an affirmative defense Therefore, the burden of proof is on the litigator to prove that he/she was intoxicated that he/she failed to have the requisite intent necessary to be guilty. There are areas who will not allow distinction between specific and general intent crimes on either side of the spectrum. a number of jurisdictions do not permit voluntary intoxication to be used as a defense to any crime, even specific intent crimes, whereas another jurisdictions permit voluntary intoxication to be used as a defense to any crime, together with general intent crimes. In case Terry v.…show more content… If a suspect is unproven for committing a criminal offense however he will solely be condemned of the crime if he committed it either unknowing or knowing, the suspect will be not guilty if he/she will show that he/she committed the crime voluntarily intoxicated. The Model Penal code can enable a suspect to use his voluntary intoxication as a sound defense. However, if the suspect is on trail for a criminal offense that he/ she can be condemned for being recklessly or negligently then he/she won't be ready to use voluntary intoxication as a