Drug or controlled substance use or dependence or intoxication as defense
Source:
Section 161.125 — Drug or controlled substance use or dependence or intoxication as defense, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 136.400)
Where intoxication was pleaded only to negative specific intent, it did not have to be proved by preponderance of evidence. State v. Smith, 260 Or 349, 490 P2d 1262 (1971)
It was not necessary to show that intoxication produced “diseased” mind or insanity to negative specific intent. State v. Smith, 260 Or 349, 490 P2d 1262 (1971)
In general
Where defendant denied he was intoxicated, evidence that he had been drinking, without more specific information as to amount, time and effect, was insufficient to raise an issue of intoxication. State v. Oliver, 13 Or App 324, 509 P2d 41 (1973)
Absence of statutory word “negative” in jury instructions with reference to defense of voluntary intoxication was not error. State v. Henson, 23 Or App 234, 541 P2d 1085 (1975)
Voluntary intoxication “as such” means voluntary intoxication by itself. State v. Peverieri, 192 Or App 229, 84 P3d 1125 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
“Element of the crime charged” refers to component of state’s prima facie case, not component of defense. State v. Bassett, 234 Or App 259, 228 P3d 590 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Up to date