M.+Shain,+Charter+and+Intoxication

1) Presentation by the prosecution of evidence of offense on the part of the accused (see s. 11(d) of the //Charter//), and placement of the burden of proof of an offense on the prosecution 2) For the most serious offenses, the accused must have possessed a certain state of mind when committing the wrongdoing. This state of mind may involve intention, recklessness or negligence, and intent to kill for homicide.
 * In Canada, one function of the Rule of Law is to make clear under what circumstances a person's freedom is deprived or constrained. Conditions under which this may occur include:
 * Offenses requiring proof of a particular state of mind are "specific intent" offenses (in contrast to "general intent" offenses).
 * A requirement to prove a certain state of mind ("mens rea") is a right under s. 7 of the //Charter//.


 * Charter Issues raised by the intoxication defense**
 * Some consider the idea that intoxication cannot give rise to a defense to crimes of general intent to contravene s. 7 and possible s. 11(d) of the Charter, as it limits the accused's right to claim lack of requisite state of mind and defeats the presumption of innocence until all elements of the charge are proved (see Daviault).
 * Others, i.e. minority in Daviault, view the act of intoxication as "filling in" for the guilty mind required for an offense of general intent.
 * Another view is that while limiting the defense is a violation of //Charter// rights, is it justified under s. 1.