Assault, Battery, and Intoxication Defenses in Criminal Law
This paper analyzes criminal law defenses available to a defendant (referred to as Sharon) charged with assault and battery after striking her husband with a wine bottle. The paper examines two primary arguments: first, whether voluntary intoxication negates criminal intent for assault or battery charges; and second, whether the wine bottle qualifies as a deadly weapon that elevates the charges to aggravated assault and battery. The discussion also defines simple and aggravated assault and battery, distinguishes between specific and general intent crimes, and considers self-defense as an alternative justification. The paper concludes that neither defense is likely to succeed on the facts presented.
- Introduction to the Criminal Law Arguments: Overview of two main defenses for Sharon
- Argument One: Voluntary Intoxication as a Defense: Intoxication defense applied to assault and battery
- Argument Two: Use of a Deadly Weapon and Aggravated Charges: Wine bottle as deadly weapon and aggravated charges
- Definitions of Battery and Assault: Legal definitions and elements of each offense
- Simple vs. Aggravated Assault and Battery: Distinguishing misdemeanor and felony-level charges
- Conclusion and Alternative Defense Strategies: Self-defense as stronger alternative justification
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Applies established criminal law doctrine directly to a fact pattern, moving clearly from rule statement to application to conclusion in each argument.
- Accurately distinguishes between specific intent and general intent crimes — a nuance essential to the intoxication defense analysis — and explains why that distinction matters for Sharon's charges.
- Uses concrete hypothetical examples (John and Jack scenarios) drawn from standard criminal law pedagogy to clarify abstract rules before applying them to the case.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method common in legal analysis. Each argument opens by identifying the legal issue, states the controlling rule with its exceptions, applies the rule to Sharon's specific facts, and reaches a reasoned conclusion. This structured approach makes the legal reasoning transparent and easy to follow.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing two discrete legal arguments, then addresses each in turn. The intoxication argument covers voluntary vs. involuntary intoxication and their respective scope. The deadly weapon argument addresses what qualifies as a dangerous weapon under the law. A definitions section then provides the doctrinal foundation for both assault and battery — simple and aggravated — before the paper closes by noting self-defense as a stronger alternative strategy. The bibliography lists six criminal law textbooks and treatises.
Introduction to the Criminal Law Arguments
This paper analyzes two primary criminal law arguments arising from a fact pattern in which Sharon, while intoxicated, struck her husband over the head with a wine bottle. The first argument considers whether Sharon's voluntary intoxication negates the criminal intent necessary for assault and battery charges. The second argument examines whether the wine bottle constitutes a deadly weapon, which would elevate the charges from simple to aggravated assault and battery. Understanding both arguments requires a clear grasp of the elements of assault and battery under criminal law, as well as the doctrines governing intoxication and aggravating circumstances.
Argument One: Voluntary Intoxication as a Defense
The argument that Sharon's act is not a criminal act because she was intoxicated is most likely not a valid defense. Intoxication is a form of justification for a criminal act. Essentially, what a justification defense argues is that although the individual did commit the act — the actus reus — due to her intoxication she lacked the criminal mind, or mens rea.
Intoxication may be caused by any substance, whether drugs, alcohol, or medicine. It may be raised as a defense whenever the intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime. However, the law typically distinguishes between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication.
Intoxication is voluntary if it results from the intentional taking — without duress — of a substance known to be intoxicating. In other words, if one is not forced into consuming the intoxicating substance, it is considered voluntary. Voluntary intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes, which require a purpose or knowledge. If the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the required purpose or obtaining the necessary knowledge, then voluntary intoxication may be raised as a defense. An important exception is that this defense is unavailable if the defendant purposely became intoxicated for the purpose of establishing the defense itself. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability. Assault is a specific intent crime; battery is a general intent crime.
Intoxication is considered involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance's intoxicating effect. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to all crimes.
Because Sharon became intoxicated voluntarily, she can only raise the defense of intoxication against the assault charge and not the battery charge. Assault requires a showing of intent to commit a battery. If it can be shown that her intoxication prevented her from formulating the intent to hit her husband, she would have a valid defense. However, it is unlikely that a credible argument can be made that Sharon hit her husband solely because of intoxication and that she did not actually intend to strike him. Her act of picking up the bottle and using it as a weapon makes her intent apparent.
Bibliography
Klotter, John C., and Joycelyn M. Pollock. Criminal Law. 8th ed. Newark: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2006.
Padfield, Nicola. Criminal Law. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Dix, George E. Gilbert Law Summaries: Criminal Law. Barbri Group, 2001.
Dressler, Joshua, and Frank R. Strong. Understanding Criminal Law. Newark: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2006.
Singer, Richard G., and John Q. LaFond. Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations. Aspen Publishers, Inc., 2004.
LaFave, Wayne. Criminal Law Hornbook. Minneapolis: West Group, 2003.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.