You are here

6.9 Intoxication—Diminished Capacity

Printer-friendly version


Evidence has been admitted that the defendant may have [been intoxicated] [suffered from diminished capacity] at the time that the crime charged was committed.

You may consider evidence of the defendant’s [intoxication] [diminished capacity] in deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent required to commit [specify crime charged].


A defense based on voluntary intoxication is available only for specific intent crimes. United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 641 n.3 (9th Cir.2005) ("Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a general intent offense."), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 915 (2006).

Likewise, diminished capacity is a defense only when a specific intent is at issue. United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1988). The diminished capacity defense is concerned with whether the defendant possessed the ability to attain the culpable state of mind which defines the crime. Id. at 678.