The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of mens rea defenses, specifically the involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrine and will apply these principles to the Capstone
8 min read
Week 4
Key Concepts: mens rea defenses: involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrine
Capstone Cases: Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State, Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991).
Assignment: The completes must be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings and Reference section. I expect perfect APA technique. The minimum requirement is five (5) scholarly sources, one of these must be a peer reviewed journal article published in the past 7 years. The textbook may count as one source. In Complete essays 1-7, there is a minimum of a 2,000- word count overall. Word counts are based on content only; references are not included in the word count assessment.
The narrative essay should clearly define the key concepts of mens rea defenses, specifically the involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrine and will apply these principles to the Capstone cases of Montana v. Egelhoff, Carter v. State, Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, and Girouard v. State. Your response will include the overview of the cases and will also need to address each question or statement listed below in an essay format.
- In the Capstone case of Montana v. Egelhoff, on July 1992, while camping out in the Yaak region of northwestern Montana, Respondent Egelhoff made friends with Roberta Pavola and John Christenson. On Sunday, July 12, the three spent much of the day and evening drinking, in bars and at a private party. At about midnight that night, officers of the Lincoln County, Montana, sheriff’s department, responding to reports of a possible drunk driver, discovered Christenson’s station wagon stuck in a ditch along U.S. Highway 2. In the front seat were Pavola and Christenson, each dead from a single gunshot to the head. In the rear of the car lay Egelhoff, alive and yelling obscenities. His blood-alcohol content measured .36 percent over one hour later. After being charged with two counts of homicide, Engelhoff attempted to assert an intoxication defense, but this was denied by the trial court. How does a claim that (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that (b) an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol?
- Do both claims carry the same moral weight?
- Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?
- Read the Court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. App. 1998). Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.
- In the Capstone case of Commonwealth v. Schnopps, on October 13, 1979, Marilyn R. Schnopps was fatally shot by her estranged husband George A. Schnopps. A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity. Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?
- What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?
- Read the two other “provocation” cases in your textbook—People v. McCarthy, 547 N. E. 2d 459 (Ill. 1989) and Girouard v. State, 583 A. 2d 718 (Md. App. 1991)—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?
This week, we address some interesting justifications for committing crimes. The first two deal with intoxication, both involuntary and voluntary. Make sure you draw a distinction between the two. Imagine this, “I was guilty of DUI/DWI, but I was drunk, ….so I must be forgiven!”. I am being funny here, but what if I was forced to drink or did so unknowingly (drugged with roofies), would this weaken my mens rea?
In Montana v. Egelhoff, make sure you address the second part of the question as well…the one about due process (this case had two strong points, intoxication and due process) [Section 1]. Section 2 reviews Carter v. State, which may cause you to rethink the intoxication defense as the facts are different.
Sections 3 and 4 examine Commonwealth v. Schnopps, People v. McCarthy, and Girouard v. State. All of these cases deal with provocations to commit crimes. It is important to stress that this defense (provocation) does not excuse the crime completely, as citizens are expected to be calm and restrictive in behavior, but may be used as a mitigation factor (as opposed to an aggravating factor) in deciding charge or punishment. This may mean the difference between murder and manslaughter for some defendants.
As in the first three weeks, please format your essays in similar format creating headings to match the questions, as shown in this outline. Remember, the completes must be in essay format and include a title section, introduction paragraph, appropriate headings and reference section.
Suggested Outline
Week 4 Mens Rea Defenses: Involuntary Intoxication and Provocation Doctrine
Your Name
Bethel University
Introductive Paragraph: Introduce your paper and the forthcoming concepts. Formally define what is meant by Mens rea, and define both the involuntary intoxication and provocation doctrine. Use intext citations (author, year) when appropriate.
Capstone Case of Montana v. Egelhoff
Explain how a claim that: (a) an intoxicated defendant should not be held responsible for his or her criminal activity because of the inability to form the requisite mens rea for a specific crime differ from the claim that an intoxicated defendant should be excused because he or she had lowered inhibitions and impaired judgment as a consequence of ingesting alcohol?
Do both claims carry the same moral weight?
Do you believe that, as a matter of fundamental due process rights, a defendant should be given the opportunity to present “all relevant evidence to rebut the State’s evidence on all elements of the offense charged”? Why or why not?
Capstone Case of Carter v. State
Based on this opinion, explain why involuntary intoxication is treated differently from voluntary intoxication as a criminal defense.
Capstone Case of Commonwealth v. Schnopps
A jury convicted Schnopps of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. Schnopps claims that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Schnopps claimed that he was provoked into killing his wife after learning of her marital infidelity. Were the wife’s comments so shocking as to be tantamount to the defendant’s actually catching her in an adulterous act with her lover?
What are the implications of extending the provocation doctrine in infidelity cases from actually witnessing a spouse committing adultery to learning about it verbally?
Capstone Cases of People v. McCarthy and Girouard v. State
Read these two other “provocation” cases in your textbook—where defendants asserted victim provocation as mitigation against homicide charges. What conditions or circumstances do the courts identify as being adequate enough to constitute possible reduced charges in homicide cases?
Conclusion
Sum up the assignment in one or two paragraphs
References
All references here in perfect APA and hanging indent.
