 |
| Patrick Ducharme |
When the defence of intoxication is raised as a defence, it is generally not a valid legal excuse for committing an offence unless the court is satisfied that the state of mind required to commit the offence has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown. The burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the constituent elements of every offence remain with the prosecution. Intoxication is a valid defence only to the extent that it may convince the trier of fact that the required state of mind to commit the offence has not been proven.
In Canada, our courts have for more than fifty years drawn a distinction between specific intent crimes and general intent crimes. The distinction between specific and general intent crimes is, to many legal scholars, nonsensical.1 Common sense suggests that a person either intends to commit a crime or does not. Nevertheless, our courts have determined that there would be a distinction drawn between types of offences, some that required a specific intent, and others, that only require a general intent.
The above is the an excerpt of Patrick J Ducharme's book, Canadian Criminal Procedure, available at Amazon or in bulk through MedicaLegal Publishing along with Criminal Trial Strategies.
Subscribe to Patrick Ducharme's Youtube Channel