Can someone who is intoxicated commit larceny?

In most jurisdictions in this country, the evidence must establish that the offender had either the general intent or the specific intent to commit the crime with which he was charged, such as larceny, theft, assault, etc. General intent is established simply by proving that the actor committed the act. For example, assault is a general intent crime that is established simply by showing that the offender hit the victim without intending to hurt the victim.

Some crimes require that the evidence show that the actor specifically intended the harm that occurred as the result of his actions. For example, to prove that an offender is guilty of larceny or theft, the evidence must show that in taking the property, the actor specifically intended to deprive the owner of the property. Both elements, the taking and the specific intent, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt to get a larceny conviction.

Intoxication Defense in Larceny Crimes

When the crime charged is one of general intent, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. However, when the crime is one like larceny, which requires specific intent to do the harm, intoxication can be used to argue that the offender did not have the required intent. In a larceny case, the argument by the defense would be that the offender was too drunk to know what he was doing when he walked away with the victim’s property.

In the end, it is up to the fact finder, the judge or the jury, to believe the defense. If the fact finder believes the defendant was too drunk to know what he was doing, it can render a not guilty verdict. However, if the fact finder finds that the defendant, despite his intoxicated state, understood what he is doing, it can still find him guilty of larceny. As a practical matter, voluntary intoxication, even with specific intent crimes, hardly ever acts as a complete and successful defense in larceny or theft crimes.

Case Studies: Intoxication and Larceny

Case Study 1: Lack of Specific Intent

Tom, heavily intoxicated, enters a convenience store and takes a bottle of wine without paying for it. He is apprehended by store security and charged with larceny. In court, Tom’s defense argues that his level of intoxication prevented him from having the specific intent to commit the crime of larceny.

The defense presents evidence of Tom’s impaired state at the time of the incident. The jury deliberates and finds Tom not guilty, considering his intoxication as a factor that negated the required intent for larceny.

Case Study 2: Failed Intoxication Defense

Sarah, under the influence of alcohol, enters a clothing store and steals a designer handbag. She is caught on surveillance cameras and apprehended by store security. During the trial, Sarah’s defense claims that her level of intoxication prevented her from forming the specific intent to commit larceny.

However, the prosecution presents evidence showing that Sarah’s actions were deliberate and calculated, indicating the presence of intent. The jury finds Sarah guilty of larceny, determining that her intoxication did not negate her culpability.

Case Study 3: Balancing Intoxication and Intent

Mark, heavily intoxicated, enters his neighbor’s garage and takes a lawnmower without permission. He argues that his level of intoxication prevented him from understanding the nature and consequences of his actions.

During the trial, both the prosecution and the defense present evidence regarding Mark’s state of intoxication and its impact on his mental state. The jury carefully considers the evidence and determines that Mark’s intoxication did impair his ability to form the specific intent required for larceny. Mark is acquitted of the charges.​

Getting Legal Help

If you have been charged with a crime and think you may have an intoxication defense, you should contact a criminal attorney.