7.8Intoxication as a Defense

Generally, “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance, other substance or compound, or combination of alcoholic liquor, drug, or other substance or compound.” MCL 768.37(1).¹ See also MCL 8.9(6) (“It is not a defense to a crime that the defendant was, at the time the crime occurred, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance, other substance or compound, or combination of alcoholic liquor, drug, or other substance or compound. However, it is an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime, for which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she voluntarily ingested a legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and did not know and reasonably should not have known that he or she would become intoxicated or impaired.”)

“Intoxication has been defined as a ‘disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.’” People v Caulley, 197 Mich App 177, 187 (1992), quoting People v Low, 732 P2d 622, 627 (Colo, 1987). “‘Involuntary intoxication is intoxication that is not self-induced and by definition occurs when the defendant does not knowingly ingest an intoxicating substance, or ingests a substance not known to be an intoxicant.’” Caulley, 197 Mich App at 187 (defendant murdered his wife after ingesting a prescription medication in doses larger than prescribed), quoting Low, 732 P2d at 627.

When a defendant asserts that he or she was involuntarily intoxicated at the time of an offense, the defendant has effectively raised an insanity defense, because “involuntary intoxication is a defense included within the ambit of the insanity defense.” People v Wilkins (David), 184 Mich App 443, 449 (1990) (defendant who was convicted of vehicular manslaughter claimed he was temporarily insane at the time of the collision as a result of involuntary intoxication caused by the combined effect of alcohol and prescription medication).

“[T]he defense of involuntary intoxication is part of the defense of insanity when the chemical effects of drugs or alcohol render the defendant temporarily insane.” Caulley, 197 Mich App at 187, citing Wilkins (David), 184 Mich App at 448-449. A defendant claiming involuntary intoxication as a defense must “demonstrate that the involuntary use of drugs created a state of mind equivalent to insanity.” Caulley, 197 Mich App at 187. Because the involuntary intoxication defense is evaluated in terms of the insanity defense, the same procedural requirements apply, and a defendant must give notice of his or her intention to assert a defense of involuntary intoxication within the statutory time limits prescribed for raising an insanity defense (notice must be provided to the court and to the prosecution not less than 30 days before trial or at such other time directed by the court, MCL 768.20a(1)). Wilkins (David), 184 Mich App at 449-450.

To prove involuntary intoxication in cases involving prescription medication, three things must be established:

•First, the defendant must prove that he or she “[did] not know or have reason to know that the prescribed drug [was] likely to have the intoxicating effect.” Caulley, 197 Mich App at 188.

•Second, the defendant’s intoxication must have been caused by the prescribed drug and not another intoxicant. Id.

•Third, the defendant must show that he or she was rendered temporarily insane as a result of his or her intoxicated condition. Id.

Where a defendant has successfully established these three things, the jury must be properly instructed on the issue of involuntary intoxication and insanity.² See id. In general,

“the trial court must instruct the jury that if it determines that defendant was involuntarily intoxicated as a result of ingesting a prescription drug . . . without knowledge of its side effects, the jury can then assess whether because of this involuntary intoxication defendant lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The court should formulate instructions that will clarify that it is for the jury to decide, on the basis of the evidence, whether defendant was intoxicated, whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, and what effect, if any, the intoxication had on defendant’s mental condition. If the jury finds that defendant was involuntarily intoxicated, then it may consider whether that could cause mental illness or legal insanity, as the court [defines] those terms.” Caulley, 197 Mich App at 189-190.