Intoxication – Specific Intent Offences - National Judicial Institute

Note: Specimen jury instructions serve as a template that trial judges must adapt to the particular circumstances of each trial, not simply read out in whole. They are not designed to be delivered "as-is." More information about the use of specimen instructions is found in the Preface and A Note to Users, which you can find here.

Intoxication – Specific Intent Offences

Note[396]

(Revised June 2022)

[1] I am now going to instruct you on the issue of intoxication.

[2] As I have said to you already, you may find (NOA) guilty only if the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he had the intent required for (specify offence). You have heard evidence that (NOA) had consumed alcohol (and/or drugs). You must consider this evidence when you determine whether (NOA) had the intent required for (specify offence).

[3] As a result of consuming alcohol or drugs, a person may not have the required intent. However, the mere fact that a person’s mind is affected by alcohol or drugs, so that they lose inhibitions or act in a way in which they would not have done had they been sober, is no excuse if the required intent is proved.

[4] In this case, you must decide whether the evidence of intoxication, along with all the other evidence, leaves you with a reasonable doubt whether (NOA) had the intent required for (specify offence) at the time of the act. (NOA) is not required to prove that s/he lacked the required intent. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) had the intent required for (specify offence) despite evidence of his/her consumption of alcohol (and/or drugs).

[5] Consider all the evidence, including evidence of (NOA)’s consumption of alcohol (and/or drugs). Consider what (NOA) consumed, how much s/he consumed, when s/he consumed it and its effect on his/her intent (and his/her knowledge of the consequences of his/her actions)[397] . Consider the level of (NOA)’s intoxication and its effect on his/her intent (and knowledge) at the time of the act, not at some earlier or later time.

(Review evidence and relate to issue.)

[396] This is the standard instruction for self-induced intoxication, which is limited to offences of specific intent. If the offence charged is one of general intent, and there is evidence of intoxication, the jury must be told that intoxication is not a defence. If the case presents evidence of extreme intoxication, it might be appropriate to give an instruction based on R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18 and R. v. Daviault, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63.

[397] The bracketed words in this paragraph relating to the accused’s knowledge must be included when the offence charged is murder under s. 229(a)(ii) in order to link the evidence of intoxication to the issue of the accused's knowledge of the likelihood of death (R.v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, at paras. 47-53, and paras. 63-68). It might be desirable to go further at this point and reiterate the mental elements of murder in ss. 229(a) (i) and (ii) to make clear that evidence of intoxication should be considered in relation to all aspects of the intent required for murder.