Canada Supreme Court Considers ‘Extreme Intoxication’ Defense in Murder Trial
The case of two men who committed acts of violence while experiencing drug-induced breaks with reality is calling to question the constitutionality of a law limiting that fact as a defense.
Landwebs
The case of Thomas Chan who, at 19, consumed a large amount of hallucinogenic mushrooms and then attacked and killed his own father will now go before the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether a law barring violent crime offenders from arguing that their actions were due to extreme intoxication and, as a result, unwillful and lacking intent is constitutional and, if not, whether the limits it places on a suspect’s ability to defend himself or herself are nevertheless justified reports the Washington Post.
The law led an Ontario trial judge to convict Chan of manslaughter and aggravated assault, despite finding that he, with no apparent rational motive for the attack, had been in a drug-induced, “not reasonably foreseeable” psychosis that rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong, or of reasonably controlling them. The case touches on how to balance the rights of the accused with those of the public, and core criminal law principles with public policy concerns. In the United States, evidence of extreme voluntary intoxication cannot generally be used to dispute intent in general intent offenses.
