Extreme Intoxication/Intoxication or Mental Disorder?

Self Induced Intoxication

• 
  Limited defence of intoxication in s 33.1 applies only where consumption of intoxicants is self-induced or voluntary.
  

R v Chaulk 2007 p 871 [Test for whether intoxicated state was self-induced]

Issue: Whether TJ erred in concluding that Mr. Chaulk’s intoxicated state was not self-induced?

Decision: Not decided

Reason:

• 
  Tj conclusion based on evidence of Mr. Chaulk’s drug + alcohol consumption that night
  
• 
  Crown argued A’s intoxication was self induced, therefor s 33.1 precludes reliance on defence of extreme intoxication for all but property offence (because for property he can raise daviult)
  
• 
  A said: went to party, consumed 6-8 beers, might have had weed. Getting bored planned to leave, Matt offered him “wake up pill” which he took. He thought substance was caffeine pill (but was actually an intoxicating substance)
  
  • 
    Heart pounded, things look weird. Had no further recollection of events, until he woke up at hospital at 10:30 am next morning.
    
• 
  Expert evidence
  
  • 
    Drs: confirm hat state was consistent with exposure to chemicals/stimulant-type drugs; He told Dr. he had consumed mixture of acid, ecstacy and weed
    
  • 
    Forensic Psychiatrist: reasonable probability that Mr. CHaulk’s mental state fulfilled non-insane automatism
    
• 
  Self Induced Intoxication
  
  • 
    Vickberg: For intoxication to be self-induced, the accused must intend to become intoxicated, either by voluntarily ingesting a substance knowing or having reasonable grounds to know it might be dangerous, or by recklessly ingesting such a substance
    
  • 
    Brenton: A argued that he took marijuana to relax, did not intend to become intoxicated = not self induced. WRONG. If ingestion is voluntary, and risk of becoming intoxicated is within contemplation, or reasonably should be, then any resulting intoxication is self-induced
    
  • 
     Involuntary= spiked drink, or accused becomes intoxicated while taking prescription drugs and their effects not known
    
• 
  Case At Hand: Accepts VIckberg
  
  • 
    Crown does not have to prove that substance is illegal, or that A must know precisely what he took
    
  • 
    King: if impairment was result of doctor’s order or recommendation, and effect unknown to patient, = involuntary
    
  • 
    Voluntary Intoxication: The consuming of a substance where the person knew or had reasonable grounds for believing such might cause him to be impaired. The accused need not contemplate the extent of the intoxication or intend a certain level of intoxication.
    
  • 
    Test:
    
    • 
      1. The accused voluntarily consumed a substance which;
      
    • 
      2. He knew or ought to have known was an intoxicant and;
      
    • 
      3. The risk of becoming intoxicated was or should have been within his contemplation
      

Note at para 45:

• 
  Courts have consistently held that voluntary intoxication means the consuming of a substance where the person know or had reasonable grounds for believing such might cause him to be impaired
  
  • 
    Imports test: they objectively should have know that they were going to get intoxicated when they took this pill.
    
  • 
    Taking away the subjective nature of the CHOICE to get intoxicated is to far
    
  • 
    Should subjectively know
    

• 
  The accused need not contemplate the extent of the intoxication or intend a certain level of intoxication
  

R v Bouchard-Lebrun 2011 SCC [Malfunction of mind resulting exclusively from self-induced intoxication NEVER considered “disease of the mind”; but if underlying mental condition – then depends on source]

Issue: Whether toxic psychosis resulting from state of self-induced intoxication caused by use of chemical drugs constitutes a mental disorder and thus exempts A from criminal responsibility for bodily integrity charge? How does the psychosis affect A’s criminal responsibility?

Decision: His underlying mental condition is irrelevant, if it is determined that the cause of his lack of knowledge was intoxication.

Reason:

• 
  Not disputed that A had serious psychotic condition at time of offences (confirmed by expert evidence)
  
• 
  At trial  acquitted on breaking and entering due to extreme intoxication and suffering from toxic psychosis at time of offence. Convicted A of aggravated assault (as per s 33.1 = self-induced intoxication cannot be defence to offence against bodily integrity of another person
  
• 
  A agrees it was induced from self-intoxication. BUT argues that it was a single episode of a mental disorder producing abnormal effects on the accused arguing indirectly that toxic psychosis developed after taking the pill resulted from underlying disease of the mind that became apparent as result of his intoxication
  
  • 
    A argues that Sopinka J’s dissent in Daviault supports this
    
• 
  Defences of Intoxication and Insanity are Mutually Exclusive!
  
  • 
    For Intoxication to apply (s 33.1): court must reach conclusion in law that A lacked general intent or voluntariness required to commit offence by reason of self-induced intoxication.
    
  • 
    Absence of intent/voluntariness preclude finding that incapacity was caused by disease of mind
    
  • 
    Conversely, fact that A was intoxicated at material time, cannot support finding that s 33.1 applies if accused establishes that he was incapable of appreciating the nature of quality of his act by reason of mental disorder.
    
  • 
    Bottom line: If A was intoxicated and in psychotic condition at material time, court must identify a specific source of mental condition: either self induced intoxication or a disease of mind
    
    • 
      Determines if A is criminally liable
      
    • 
      More difficult when they have underlying mental condition
      
  • 
    1. Start with Disease of the Mind
    
    • 
      “any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs human mind and its functioning, excluding self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental states as hysteria or concussion” (Cooper)
      
    • 
      THe Mental disorder must go to the CAUSE of the lack of knowledge.
      
  • 
    2. If s 16 does not apply, court can consider s 33.1
    
• 
  Question remaining: whether a toxic psychosis that results exclusively from state of intoxication with abnormal effect, constitutes mental disorder for purposes of s 16 or is excluded by cooper?
  
  • 
    Insanity rests on fundamental level: exemption from criminal liability due to incapacity for criminal intent. Their actions are not a product of their free will
    
  • 
    Characterizing a mental condition as “mental disorder” is a legal exercise with a medical and scientific substratum
    
    • 
      So A cannot argue that Toxic Psychosis is ALWAYS mental disorder, since it rests on argument that legal characterization of s 16 depends exclusively on medical diagnosis
      
    • 
      In each new situation, the case turns on its own facts  must use contextual approach not broad approach
      
  • 
    The general exclusion of Cooper can be rebutted by showing that, at material time, he was suffering from disease of the mind that was unrelated to intoxication-related symptoms
    
    • 
      Burden of Proof = holistic approach (Stone) to enable the court to determine whether mental condition of A at material time constitutes “mental disorder” for purposes of s 16
      
• 
  Applied
  
  • 
    TJ found A highly intoxicated. In psychotic condition.
    
  • 
    Taking of the pill is external factor that contraditcts A’s argument, since reaction of normal person to such a pill would be toxic psychosis. strongly suggests lack of mental disorder
    
  • 
    First Factor from Stone: Rapid appearance of psychotic symptoms generally indicates specific external factor = substance intoxication
    
    • 
      Such delusions do not result from disease of mind within Code
      
  • 
    Second Factor from stone:
    
    • 
      No evidence indicating that mental condition of A is inherently dangerous. provided that abstain from such drugs, no threat to public safety
      
    • 
      (If A was addicted, SCC might have concluded that he was a risk to public safety  so maybe s 16 if addiction constitutes disease of the mind)
      
  • 
    Part XX.1 of code is not intended to apply to persons whose temporary madness was induced artificially by state of intoxication
    
  • 
    IS s 33.1 Applicable?
    
    • 
      1) The accused was intoxicated at material time 2) it was self induced and 3) A departed from reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society by interfering with bodily integrity of another.
      
    • 
      If these three above are proved = no defence that A lacked general intent or voluntariness required to commit offence
      
    • 
      S 33.1 applies to any mental condition that is direct extension of state of intoxication. No distinction based on seriousness of effects of self-induced intoxication.
      
  • 
    S 33.1 was applicable rather than s 16
    

At para. 20, LeBel J. sets out how the law should generally operate where a person with a mental disorder is intoxicated. Basically:

It depends exclusively on the reason why the accused is claiming an absence of AR/MR
TH: The difficulty in regulating the interaction between s 16 and 33.1 lies primarily in the fact that:

Its not always easy, as a factual matter, to separate symptoms of the mental disorder from symptoms of the intoxicant