Assault, Battery, and Intoxication Defenses in Criminal Law

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.

Argument Two: Use of a Deadly Weapon and Aggravated Charges

The argument that Sharon should be charged only with simple assault and battery — rather than aggravated assault and battery — because no deadly weapon was used will ultimately fail in court. All jurisdictions define certain acts as aggravated batteries and/or assaults and punish them as felonies. Typically, these aggravating factors include: the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon; an act that causes serious bodily injury; a victim who is a child, woman, or police officer; or an assault committed with the intent to commit rape, maiming, or murder.

Under the law, a deadly weapon can be any ordinary object that becomes a deadly weapon depending on how it is used. A weapon is generally considered deadly when used in a way that may inflict mortal or great bodily harm. Most statutes contain a "catch-all" provision that gives courts room to expand the definition to include other implements. The question of whether the item could actually inflict such harm is not part of the determination — for example, an unloaded gun is usually designated as a deadly weapon.

Although a wine bottle by itself is not a deadly weapon, when used in an assault a court will look to how it was used rather than what it is. In this case, Sharon specifically used the bottle as a weapon: she picked it up and smashed it over her husband's head, causing him to bleed profusely and require emergency medical assistance.

It is the act of using the glass bottle to strike the husband on the head that makes it a dangerous or deadly weapon. It is common knowledge that a glass wine bottle is a blunt object capable of causing serious injury, especially when the blow is to the head. It is also common knowledge that a glass wine bottle, when smashed against something, will likely shatter into sharp fragments capable of causing great bodily harm. This common knowledge of these dangers, combined with Sharon's actual use of the bottle as a weapon, makes the glass bottle a dangerous weapon and thus an aggravating factor in her assault and battery charges.

Conclusion and Alternative Defense Strategies

A stronger argument for Sharon would be to focus on a self-defense claim as a justification for her use of the wine bottle. In order to raise this defense, Sharon must show that her use of force was non-deadly, that she was without fault, and that her use of force was reasonable in light of the need to protect herself from the imminent use of unlawful force against her. Given that her husband stood up, clenched his fist, and verbally threatened her, a self-defense argument grounded in the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm may offer a more viable path than either the intoxication defense or the claim that no deadly weapon was used.

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.