Professional Documents
Culture Documents
State v. Cameron
State v. Cameron
State v. Cameron
Facts: Δ, intoxicated, approached the victim, who was playing cards, and was very disruptive. She then
attacked the victim with a broken bottle, and cut his hand. When the police arrived, she was very violent toward
them too. Δ was convicted of second degree aggravated assault. The appellate court reversed the conviction
because lower court erroneously failed to give an intoxication charge.
Holding: Court agrees that voluntary intoxication is a defense, but only when it negates an essential element of
the offense - which here is purposeful conduct. However, this court reversed the appellate court's decision that
Δ's intoxication defense should have been submitted into evidence. At common law, voluntary intoxication was
a defense only when it negated specific intent, but the charges here called for general intent. The court describes
specific intent as purpose or knowledge, and general intent as recklessness or criminal negligence. Therefore,
intoxication defense only applies when it negates purpose or knowledge, but not recklessness or negligence.
Class Notes
Pg. 253 - intoxication of Δ is not a defense unless it negates an element of the defense. This doesn’t apply when
statute only calls for recklessness.
_________________________________________