People v. Newton
8 N.Y.3d 460 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication is irrelevant and cannot be used as a defense for a crime that employs an objective 'reasonable person' standard, as such a standard does not require proof of the defendant's subjective mental state.
Facts:
- Defendant James W. Newton, Jr. had been consuming beer steadily in the hours before the incident.
- Newton engaged in oral sex with a 19-year-old male.
- The 19-year-old male later alleged the act was the result of forcible compulsion and without his consent.
- Newton contended that he perceived the sexual act to be consensual.
- Newton also asserted that the alleged victim did not resist or otherwise communicate a lack of consent.
Procedural Posture:
- James W. Newton, Jr. was indicted in a New York trial court on charges including sodomy in the first degree and sodomy in the third degree.
- At trial, Newton's counsel requested a jury instruction on intoxication for both sodomy counts.
- The trial court instructed the jury on intoxication for the first-degree charge but refused to do so for the third-degree charge.
- A jury acquitted Newton of sodomy in the first degree but convicted him of sodomy in the third degree.
- Newton, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (New York's highest court) granted Newton leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication negate an element of third-degree sodomy, a crime which uses an objective 'reasonable person' standard to determine if the victim's lack of consent was clearly expressed?
Opinions:
Majority - Read, J.
No. Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication does not negate an element of third-degree sodomy because the crime does not contain a subjective mental state element. The statute defines 'lack of consent' for this offense using an objective standard: whether a 'reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent.' The court's inquiry is not whether the defendant actually perceived non-consent, but whether the victim clearly expressed it in a way a neutral observer would have understood. Because the defendant’s subjective mental state is not an element of the crime, evidence of intoxication, which only serves to negate a subjective element like intent, is irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that crimes defined by an objective 'reasonable person' standard are insulated from defenses based on a defendant's subjective state, such as intoxication. It distinguishes these offenses from specific intent crimes where intoxication may be a valid defense. The ruling prevents the legal focus from shifting from the victim's clear expression of non-consent to the defendant's self-induced inability to perceive that expression, thereby strengthening protections in so-called 'acquaintance rape' scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Newton