## Facts

- On October 7, 1975, at the Silver Moon Tavern in Clifton, New Jersey, Thomas Stasio spent hours drinking with patron Robert Colburn.
- Colburn testified that despite drinking, Stasio’s speech and mannerisms did not indicate drunkenness when Colburn left around 3:00 p.m.
- Around 5:40 p.m., Stasio entered the tavern, walked normally to the bathroom, returned, looked outside, and demanded money from bartender Peter Klimek.
- After Klimek refused, Stasio went behind the bar, insisted on $80 from the cash register, and produced a knife when refused again.
- Klimek and Colburn subdued Stasio; during the struggle the knife was dropped.
- Officer Robert Rowan arrived shortly thereafter and arrested Stasio; witnesses again indicated Stasio did not appear drunk.
- Stasio was charged with assault with intent to rob (N.J.S.A. 2A:90-2) and assault while armed with a dangerous knife (N.J.S.A. 2A:151-5).

## Issues

1. Whether voluntary intoxication may be asserted to negate the intent element of a crime, including offenses traditionally treated as requiring specific intent such as assault with intent to rob.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that intoxication could negate intent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the convictions.
- The court held that, under New Jersey pre-Code common law, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to criminal liability, including crimes requiring intent.
- The trial judge did not err by refusing an intoxication instruction because voluntary intoxication could not be used to defeat the intent element for these offenses.
- The court recognized only limited, historically accepted situations where intoxication may matter (such as intoxication producing legal insanity, or negating premeditation in murder).

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary intoxication ordinarily does not excuse criminal conduct and is not a general defense to crimes requiring intent.
- Reliance on the specific-intent/general-intent distinction to determine availability of an intoxication defense is disfavored due to practical and doctrinal instability.
- Intoxication evidence may be relevant only within narrow, historically recognized exceptions (including insanity and premeditation in murder).
- Policy considerations may support refusing to reduce criminal accountability for harms committed after self-induced intoxication.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed New Jersey’s pre-Code common-law rule that self-induced intoxication generally cannot negate intent or provide a defense, and it upheld the trial court’s refusal to charge voluntary intoxication in a prosecution for assault with intent to rob and related armed assault.


State v. Stasio, 78 N.J. 467, 396 A.2d 1129 (N.J. 1979)