ILNews

Judges refuse to create another intoxication defense

Jennifer Nelson
January 19, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s argument that he should be allowed to use intoxication as a defense to his criminal charges because the prescription medication that caused his strange behavior was taken for valid medical purposes.

Tommy Alfrey, who has multiple health problems, had valid prescriptions for Oxycontin and Oxycodone to help manage pain. He appeals his convictions in three separate matters. Alfrey’s actions led to convictions of felony theft and residential entry, among other convictions, and to his probation being revoked.

While taking his prescribed drugs, Alfrey was acting strange and ended up breaking into an apartment and stealing pudding. In another incident, he entered a neighbor’s home and thought he was supposed to be there to perform maintenance requested by Alfrey’s landlord. The homeowner said Alfrey was mumbling but did leave her home when asked.

After he was convicted of the two residential entry incidents, the trial court revoked his probation.

He appealed in Tommy D. Alfrey v. State of Indiana, No. 54A01-1104-CR-169, claiming the trial court’s instruction regarding the defense of intoxication constituted fundamental error. He argued that the defense has “its roots in drunkenness” and doesn’t apply to prescription medications taken for medical purposes. Indiana Code 35-41-3-5 establishes only two circumstances in which intoxication may be used as a defense: if the intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into the body without consent or when the person didn’t know the substance might cause intoxication.

Alfrey voluntarily took the medication that caused his intoxication and knew it could cause impairment, so the judges declined to create a third exception. The trial court’s instructions were consistent with the law.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT