Commonwealth v. Graves
1975 Pa. LEXIS 729, 461 Pa. 118, 334 A.2d 661 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of voluntary intoxication or drugged condition is admissible to negate the specific intent required as a material element of any crime, not just felonious homicide, if the degree of inebriation rendered the accused incapable of forming that specific intent.
Facts:
- Daniel Graves and his cousins, Thomas and Edward Mathis, planned and burglarized the residence of Sebastiano Patiri, a 75-year-old man.
- During the course of the robbery and burglary, Mr. Patiri sustained injuries which resulted in his death.
- On the day of the incident, Daniel Graves consumed a quart or more of wine and took a pill identified as a form of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD).
- Graves testified at trial that he began hallucinating, became unconscious, and suffered limited amnesia, claiming no recollection of the events at the Patiri home.
- Dr. Sadoff, a professional psychiatrist, examined Graves and determined that, in his opinion, Graves was under the influence of intoxicants and drugs to the extent that "his mind was such that he wasn’t able to form the proper conscious intent to take a life, to assault."
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Lee Graves was convicted by a jury in Northampton County for first degree murder, robbery, and burglary.
- Post-trial motions were filed and subsequently denied.
- A sentence of life imprisonment was imposed under the murder indictment.
- Graves filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can evidence of voluntary intoxication or a drugged condition, which prevents an accused from forming the requisite specific intent, be used to negate specific intent for crimes like robbery and burglary, potentially leading to acquittal, or is its application limited solely to reducing the degree of guilt within felonious homicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Nix, Justice
Yes, evidence of voluntary intoxication or a drugged condition can be used to negate the specific intent required for crimes like robbery and burglary, potentially leading to an acquittal. The Court rejected the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Tarver, which limited the use of intoxication evidence to reducing the degree of guilt within felonious homicide. The majority clarified that while voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct, it is highly relevant to establishing whether the defendant actually possessed the requisite state of mind, or specific intent, that is a material element of the crime charged. If the intoxication was so severe that the mind was incapable of forming that specific intent, then a core element of the crime is absent, and the crime, as defined by the legislature, did not in fact occur. Precluding such relevant evidence would violate a defendant's right to contest a material fact that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that prior cases focusing on intoxication as a mitigating factor (which is improper) had been misunderstood as precluding evidence to disprove intent (which is proper). Furthermore, the new Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. § 308) aligns with this view, expressly allowing intoxication evidence whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense.
Dissenting - Eagen, Justice
No, evidence of voluntary intoxication should not be extended beyond felonious homicide cases to negate specific intent for crimes like robbery and burglary, as this would effectively allow intoxication to serve as a complete excuse for criminal acts. The dissenting opinion emphasized the long-standing principle that voluntary intoxication, no matter its severity, neither exonerates nor excuses criminal conduct. Individuals who voluntarily place themselves in a state where they have no control over their actions must be held responsible for the consequences. The dissent argued that the only permissible use of intoxication evidence was to lower the degree of guilt within a crime where the Legislature specifically provided for varying degrees (e.g., first-degree to second-degree murder), but not to change the nature of the crime or lead to a complete exoneration. Extending this exception to crimes like robbery and burglary, which lack analogous degrees, would undermine the protection of life and property and create a "broad, easy turnpike for escape" for criminals, fundamentally altering the concept of criminal responsibility.
Analysis:
This case fundamentally reshapes the defense of voluntary intoxication in Pennsylvania, moving it from a limited degree-reducing factor in homicide to a potential complete defense for any crime requiring specific intent. By emphasizing that intoxication evidence is not an 'excuse' but rather a factual challenge to the prosecution's burden of proving mens rea, the court aligned state law more closely with the foundational principle that the Commonwealth must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling provides a broader avenue for defendants to introduce evidence of extreme intoxication, potentially leading to more acquittals or convictions for lesser offenses where specific intent is not an element. It also highlights the ongoing tension between societal expectations of responsibility for self-induced conditions and the strict legal requirement of proving a defendant's mental state.
