Main Menu

Dorsey v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Emma Giusto

In Dorsey v. State, 480 P.3d 1211 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that the involuntary intoxication defense did not apply to an individual charged with sexual assault who claimed to be in a state of “transient mild delirium” due to a reaction to a prescription muscle relaxant, as it is not an excuse under Alaska law. (Id. at 1213–14, 1220–21). Dorsey was convicted of second-degree sexual assault after lifting the skirt of a woman in a grocery store and touching her genitals. (Id. at 1213). At trial, Dorsey wanted to argue his conduct was a result of involuntary intoxication from a prescription muscle relaxant that prohibited him from confirming his conduct to the requirements of the law. (Id. at 1214). The court ruled that if Dorsey introduced this defense, the jury would be instructed to find him guilty but mentally ill, so Dorsey abandoned the defense. (Id.). On appeal, Dorsey argued the trial court erred in this ruling. (Id. at 1217). The court of appeals affirmed Dorsey’s conviction, reasoning that the ruling was a harmless error. (Id. at 1213). There is no statutory basis for the involuntary intoxication defense in Alaska, but it is recognized as a common law defense if the involuntary intoxication negates either of the essential elements of the crime — the actus reus or mens rea. (Id. at 1219–20). Dorsey argued his actions should be excused because his involuntary intoxication prohibited him from confirming his conduct to the requirements of the law, but, as this court previously held, involuntary intoxication is only available as an excuse if the defendant’s state of mind resembles the statutorily defined test for insanity. (Id. at 1220). In Alaska, the legislature changed the test for insanity to not include a volitional prong related to the capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law, so there is no excuse. (Id. at 1220–21). While the trial court was incorrect to rule the defense would result in a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, this error was harmless as the defense does not exist under Alaska law. (Id. at 1223). In affirming Dorsey’s conviction, the court of appeals held that the involuntary intoxication defense did not apply to an individual charged with sexual assault who claimed to be in a state of “transient mild delirium” due to a reaction to a prescription muscle relaxant, as it is not an excuse under Alaska law. (Id. at 1213–14, 1220–21).

Dorsey v. State

CRIMINAL LAW

Emma Giusto

In Dorsey v. State, 480 P.3d 1211 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that the involuntary intoxication defense did not apply to an individual charged with sexual assault who claimed to be in a state of “transient mild delirium” due to a reaction to a prescription muscle relaxant, as it is not an excuse under Alaska law. (Id. at 1213–14, 1220–21). Dorsey was convicted of second-degree sexual assault after lifting the skirt of a woman in a grocery store and touching her genitals. (Id. at 1213). At trial, Dorsey wanted to argue his conduct was a result of involuntary intoxication from a prescription muscle relaxant that prohibited him from confirming his conduct to the requirements of the law. (Id. at 1214). The court ruled that if Dorsey introduced this defense, the jury would be instructed to find him guilty but mentally ill, so Dorsey abandoned the defense. (Id.). On appeal, Dorsey argued the trial court erred in this ruling. (Id. at 1217). The court of appeals affirmed Dorsey’s conviction, reasoning that the ruling was a harmless error. (Id. at 1213). There is no statutory basis for the involuntary intoxication defense in Alaska, but it is recognized as a common law defense if the involuntary intoxication negates either of the essential elements of the crime — the actus reus or mens rea. (Id. at 1219–20). Dorsey argued his actions should be excused because his involuntary intoxication prohibited him from confirming his conduct to the requirements of the law, but, as this court previously held, involuntary intoxication is only available as an excuse if the defendant’s state of mind resembles the statutorily defined test for insanity. (Id. at 1220). In Alaska, the legislature changed the test for insanity to not include a volitional prong related to the capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law, so there is no excuse. (Id. at 1220–21). While the trial court was incorrect to rule the defense would result in a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, this error was harmless as the defense does not exist under Alaska law. (Id. at 1223). In affirming Dorsey’s conviction, the court of appeals held that the involuntary intoxication defense did not apply to an individual charged with sexual assault who claimed to be in a state of “transient mild delirium” due to a reaction to a prescription muscle relaxant, as it is not an excuse under Alaska law. (Id. at 1213–14, 1220–21).