Intoxication Applies To All Intent Words
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Criminal Law1
Example wrong choices
14650_fellowship_picnic · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Aadmitted without limitation.
Why it's attractive
Students know intoxication can negate intent and over-apply it to both charges.
Why it's wrong
Admits the evidence without limitation and over-applies a specific-intent intoxication rule to the general-intent battery count.
Spot it next time
Ask: which count actually requires the intent intoxication can negate?
14650_fellowship_picnic · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Cadmitted subject to an instruction that it pertains only to the criminal battery charge.
Why it's attractive
The visible knife wound makes the battery count feel like the charge the evidence should target.
Why it's wrong
Reverses the scope by routing intoxication only to the battery count instead of the attempted murder count.
Spot it next time
Map attempted murder to specific intent and battery to general intent.
14650_fellowship_picnic · CRIMINAL_LAW · Choice Dexcluded altogether.
Why it's attractive
Students remember that voluntary intoxication is disfavored and turn that into total exclusion.
Why it's wrong
Excludes the evidence altogether and omits its admissible use on the attempted murder count.
Spot it next time
Split admissibility by charge.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →