Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts substitute narrowing voluntary-intoxication defense in certain sexual-offense cases
Summary
Lawmakers approved a first substitute to HB 139 that removes voluntary-intoxication as a defense for a specific category of sexual offenses cited in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4; proponents cited victim-impact concerns and a juror letter involving an Ambien case. The substitute passed and the bill cleared the House 45–25.
The Utah House adopted a first substitute to House Bill 139 on Tuesday that limits the availability of voluntary-intoxication as a defense in prosecutions for a specified set of sexual offenses under Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4.
Representative Stratton (the floor sponsor) told colleagues the substitute narrows the bill’s scope after discussions in committee and across stakeholders. He read a juror’s account of a case in which jurors believed the victim’s account but said the defendant’s claim of taking Ambien created reasonable doubt, leaving jurors who felt justice was not served.
Members questioned practical consequences. Representative Thurston asked whether the change would bar defenses in cases where a defendant claims involuntary or unanticipated medication effects (for example, somnambulism or a first-time adverse reaction). The sponsor and supporters said the substitute was intentionally narrower than earlier drafts and that victim-advocacy groups and prosecutors had supported the change. Representative Thurston summarized the practical issue: under current law, a jury that finds voluntary intoxication can create reasonable doubt about intent; the substitute removes that defense for the specified offense.
The House approved the first substitute and passed the bill on floor vote, 45–25. The bill will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.
