The Defense of "Involuntary Intoxication"
A Dover man who is charged with drunk driving and two counts of first degree aggravated manslaughter in the death of two teenagers is attempting to use "pathological intoxication" or "involuntary intoxication" as a defense to the aggravated manslaughter charges. This defense attempts to show that the Defendant became regularly intoxicated to the point where he had no control over his alcohol addiction and, therefore, no control over his actions.
The proffered defense is meritless with regard to his driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge. If the state can show that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was above the legal limit and that he was operating a vehicle at the time, he is guilty of drunk driving in New Jersey. However, the "pathological intoxication" defense may be helpful against the aggravated manslaughter charges.
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to criminal charges. Thus, the fact that the defendant was drunk is typically irrelevant to the criminal charges against him or her. However, experienced criminal defense attorneys will sometimes assert an involuntary intoxication defense. This defense strategy typically requires proof (1) that the individual was an addict and was typically inebriated and (2) that the individual was inebrated at the time of the criminal act. In this case, the Defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was .305, nearly four times the legal limit in New Jersey of .08 BAC. In theory, defense counsel will argue that the defendant is "ill" and did not have the requisite mental capacity to commit a criminal act at the time of the incident. This is similar to an insanity defense. However, this is a very difficult defense to prove and the likelihood of success is marginal.
The "involuntary intoxication defense" is an extremely slipperly slope. The law bans a defense of voluntary intoxication because society does not want individuals avoiding criminal prosecution because they were intoxicated. The claim that "I was drunk so I hit my wife" should never be allowed to stand. As a result, if the court allows an expansive view of the "involuntary intoxication" or "pathological intoxication" defense it could come dangerously close to a defense of voluntary intoxication. To allow a defendant a defense because he got drunk and drove every day of the week instead of once a month does not seem like a justified result.
For additional information on this case, see Pathological Intoxication Defense in NJ.
