People V Lardie Case Summary

Summary: Jim, who lives in Detroit Michigan, had a few drinks at a local bar but was not intoxicated. Before he left he asked the bartender for a drink of water, who in error gave him a 6oz cup of 40% Vodka. Jim drank it quickly noticing the strength of the liquid but figured it was his imagination as he had requested water. The Vodka went straight to his head and he became intoxicated, causing him to lose control of his car which jumped a curb and killed two people. Jim was arrested and put on trial under Michigan’s “causing death while operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated” statute which carries a 15 year prison sentence. Jim wants to argue that he did not knowingly drink enough to make him drunk, but the judge instructs the jury that it …show more content…
People v. Lardie, 452 Mich. 231, 551 N.W.2d 656 (1996), in this case the defendants asked the Supreme court of appeals to review their felony convictions and sentencing of up to 15 years under Michigan statute, for driving while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle causing the death of another. The Supreme Court found that “specific intent is defined as a particular criminal intent beyond the act done, whereas general intent is merely the intent to perform the physical act itself” Id. In a strict liability crime the plaintiff has to prove only that the defendant performed the act, regardless of whether he intended to perform it or not. For a general intent crime, “the people merely need to prove that the defendant purposefully or voluntarily performed the wrongful act.”