|
Criminal Law Assignment # 2
|
|
Question:
|
Jim lives in Detroit, MI. One day, Jim is at a local bar. He has had a few drinks, but he is not intoxicated. As he is about to leave, he asks the bartender for a cup of water. The bartender by mistake, hands him a 6 ox cup to 40% Vodka instead. Jim gulps down the glass quickly. He notices the strnegth of the liquid, but figures that it must be his imagination; as he clearly asked for water. Jim gets in his car and drive home. Unfortunately for him, the vodka goes straight to his head and he becomes intoxicated. Because of Jim's inoxication, he loses control of his car, which jumps a curb and kills 2 people.
Jim is arrested and put on trial under Michigan's causing death while operating a motor vehicle while inoxicated statute, which carries a penalty of up to 15 years in prison.
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 sever punishment without proving any mens rea on Jim's part.
Who is correct? Please use Michigan case law to support your answer.
|
|
