Where a crime requires a certain mental state (mens rea) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions.
In some instances, consumption of a mind-altering substance has formed the basis of religious or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals.
As an example, in the Dutch courage defense (see the Gallagher case in English law on intoxication), the accused hates his spouse but fears to take action.
[2] But if, at a party, a bowl of fruit punch is "spiked" by someone who secretly adds gin, the resulting drunkenness is not voluntary and might be considered a possible defense.
Leaving aside the issue that, in some states, this is a strict liability offense excluding drunkenness as a defense, there is usually a requirement that the person who "spiked" the drinks be prosecuted in place of the driver.
[4] More generally, the defense would be denied to people experiencing symptoms of intoxication who continued to consume the spiked drink because they ought to have known what was happening to them.
Equally, if no further consumption occurred but they ought to have recognized that they were affected by an unknown substance, beginning an activity such as driving would not fall within the defense.
This term refers to two separate types of offense: If a "specific intent" in either sense is required and there is clear evidence that the accused was too intoxicated to form the element subjectively, this fact is recognised as a defense unless the loss of control was part of the plan.