body: Say Person A is very drunk and tried to attacked Person B, but Person B dodged, and Person C got hit. Person C had a pre-existing medical condition and died as a result of Person A's action. 
  
  
  If the defendant uses the defense of intoxication and it is believed that the defendant lacks the required *mens rea*, is the doctrine of transferred malice is still relevant? Because the doctrine of transferred malice only applies when the defendant has the required *mens rea*? So when I am writing my analysis I need not mention the doctrine of transferred malice?
  
  
  And if the defendant uses the defense of intoxication, then he is more likely to be convicted of manslaughter, a basic intent offence in this situation right? As a murder is a specific intent offence and after the case of DPP v Beard (1920) it is unlikely that the defendant will be convicted of murder?
  
  
  I just want to make sure my analysis is correct.
  
  
  
title: Transfer malice and intoxication defense?