State v. Stasio

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1979 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawVoluntary intoxicationIntentJury instructionsvoluntary intoxicationintentspecific intentgeneral intent

Facts

At a tavern, defendant demanded money from the bartender, went behind the bar, insisted on receiving $80 from the cash register, and then pulled out a knife when refused. State witnesses testified that defendant walked normally, responded to questions without difficulty, and did not appear intoxicated. Before defendant presented any evidence, defense counsel proffered that defendant had been drinking most of the day and would argue he was too intoxicated to form the intent to rob. The trial court stated it would charge that voluntary intoxication was not a defense, and defendant chose not to testify because of that ruling.

Issue

Whether voluntary intoxication is a defense to a crime when one element of the offense is the defendant's intent, specifically assault with intent to rob. Also, whether the trial court's charge using the phrase "prima facie evidence" regarding possession of a dangerous knife was proper.

Rule

In New Jersey, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct unless one of the limited exceptions recognized in State v. Maik applies. The specific-intent/general-intent distinction does not govern availability of the intoxication defense; except for recognized exceptions such as disproving premeditation and deliberation in murder, fixed insanity after intoxication, certain felony-murder situations, or using intoxication to show nonparticipation, stupor, mistake, or inability to commit the act, voluntary intoxication is generally no defense. When instructing juries, courts should avoid unexplained use of "prima facie" language and instead describe permissible inferences the jury may or may not draw.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Newark, Daniel Rios spent the afternoon drinking whiskey at a neighborhood bar. That evening he entered a convenience store, pointed a screwdriver at the cashier, and demanded the contents of the register. At trial on a charge of assault with intent to rob, Daniel offers evidence that he was too drunk to form an intent to rob.

How should the court rule on Daniel's intoxication argument?

Explanation. The majority rule is that voluntary intoxication generally does not excuse criminal conduct, and the availability of the defense does not turn on the specific-intent/general-intent distinction. Thus, for a charge such as assault with intent to rob, evidence that the defendant voluntarily became drunk and therefore allegedly could not form intent does not provide a defense unless a recognized exception applies.