Which of the following is an example of a Defense to Specific Intent crimes?

• A. Voluntary intoxication
• B. Involuntary intoxication
• C. Insanity
• D. Duress

Answer: (A)

Specific intent crimes require proof of a particular mental state beyond the act itself. Voluntary intoxication can prevent the formation of that required mental state, so it serves as a defense to those offenses. When someone voluntarily drinks to the point of intoxication, they may be unable to form the specific intent the crime requires, even though the physical act occurred. For example, if the crime requires an intent to steal or to commit a felony inside a building, intoxication can negate that intent and defeat the crime.

This defense differs from others in scope. General intent offenses, which only require the performance of the act itself, are not typically exonerated by voluntary intoxication. Involuntary intoxication can be a broader defense, potentially negating the mental state for many offenses, while insanity and duress operate under separate doctrinal rules and are not limited to specific-intent crimes. But the classic illustration of a defense tailored to the mens rea of specific intent crimes is voluntary intoxication.