Court Opinion

ID: 9851668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:17:23.71075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:11.745982
License: Public Domain

Justice Lake
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion but not in the statements therein concerning the defense of un-ciousness when that condition is due to voluntary drunkenness.
The burden of proving this defense, like that of insanity, is upon the defendant. State v. Caddell, 287 N.C. 266, 215 S.E. 2d 348 (1975), which overruled, on this point, State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108, 165 S.E. 2d 328, cited in the majority opinion upon a different point. The defendant has the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the jury that he was unconscious at the time of the alleged criminal act. When, however, this fact is so established, it is a complete defense to the criminal charge, whatever may have caused it. Voluntary drunkenness, per se, is, of course, no defense to a criminal charge. However, the mere reflex action of one who has actually lost consciousness due to the effect of alcohol voluntarily consumed (i.e., one who has “passed out,” as distinguished from loss of ability to understand, to intend, to reason) is not the basis for liability for a crime requiring his voluntary act. Such crimes include the lesser degrees of homicide as well as murder in the first degree. There is no evidence whatever of such unconsciousness in the present case.