criminal-law
Transfer malice and intoxication defense?
<p>Say Person A is very drunk and tried to attacked Person B, but Person B dodged, and Person C got hit. Person C had a pre-existing medical condition and died as a result of Person A's action.  </p>

<p>If the defendant uses the defense of intoxication and it is believed that the defendant lacks the required <em>mens rea</em>, is the doctrine of transferred malice is still relevant? Because the doctrine of transferred malice only applies when the defendant has the required <em>mens rea</em>? So when I am writing my analysis I need not mention the doctrine of transferred malice?</p>

<p>And if the defendant uses the defense of intoxication, then he is more likely to be convicted of manslaughter, a basic intent offence in this situation right? As a murder is a specific intent offence and after the case of DPP v Beard (1920) it is unlikely that the defendant will be convicted of murder?</p>

<p>I just want to make sure my analysis is correct.</p>

<p>In what benighted part of the world are you? There is no defence of "intoxication" in any part of, say, Australia: the last jurisdiction to abolish it was the ACT in the 1990s. In Australian criminal law, you are responsible for your actions no matter how much you chose to drink.</p>

<p>Of course, if you can prove that you became intoxicated by someone else's actions (a spiked drink?) that may be taken into account.</p>
