A homicide committed while acting in a reckless manner is manslaughter, not murder. An example of this is a death caused while driving while intoxicated. In most states, this is involuntary, or reckless, manslaughter. My question is, what if a killing is done intentionally while intoxicated? Is it still murder or only manslaugher?
For example: Joe, a resident of Norfolk, Virginia, is angry at his boss, Jerry, because he has just been fired. Joe goes to a bar and drowns his sorrows in 4 pints of beer. Joe leaves the bar with a new degree of "liquid courage." He goes into a hardware store and purchases a knife, and staggers straight to Jerry's house. He bursts into Jerry's house, hunts down Jerry and kills him with the knife.
Joe is arrested and tried for first degree murder. The prosecution alleges that the murder was premeditated and announces that is will seek the death penalty for Joe.
Joe claims that although the murder was planned and voluntary, he was so drunk that he could not have properly formed the intent to kill and should therefore not be subjected to a murder charge. Using Virginia case law, can you determine whether Joe's argument is valid?
(Warning: A lot of the case law that you find in this area may be rather old. Don't worry about that. There's nothing wrong with using old case law; though all else being equal, newer is better.)
An IRAC-based essay is appropriate for this assignment. Jim wants to argue that he did not knowingly drink enough to make him drunk. However, the judge instructs the jury that whether Jim knew that the liquid that he drank was vodka was irrelevant because driving while intoxicated is a strict liability offense. Jim's attorney claims that this would be unconstitutional because it would not be fair to give somebody such a severe punishment without proving any mens rea on Jim's part. Who is correct? Please use appropriate case law to support your answer. An IRAC-based essay is appropriate for this assignment.