SERIES 3400 DEFENSES AND INSANITY
F 3427 Involuntary Intoxication
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 3427 Inst 1 Modification Of Burden Shifting Language
F 3427 Inst 2 Defendant Does Not Need To Prove Intoxication
F 3427 Inst 3 Jurors Must Unanimously Reject Any Defenses Before Convicting
F 3427 Inst 4 Deletion Of Misleading “Assuming The Risk” Language
F 3427 Inst 5 Knowing Ingestion Of Prescription Medication Without Knowledge Of Its Intoxicating Effect
F 3427 Inst 6 Consideration Of Intoxication Regarding Voluntariness And Trustworthiness Of Defendant’s Statements
F 3427 NOTES
F 3427 Note 1 Involuntary Intoxication Based On Ingestion Of Prescription Medication
F 3427 Note 2 No Reference To Whether Or Not Intoxication Was Voluntary Unless That Issue Is Raised By The Evidence
Return to Series 3400 Table of Contents.
F 3427 Inst 1 Modification Of Burden Shifting Language
*Replace CC 3427 with the following [CC 3400 adaption]:
The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed ____________ <insert crime[s] charged> with ___________________ <insert general intent, specific intent or mental state required>. The defendant contends that (he/she) did not have the required [intent] [and] [mental state] due in whole or part to (his/her) [involuntary] intoxication. However, the defendant does not need to prove that (he/she) did not have the required [intent] [and] [mental state].
If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant committed the crime with ___________________ <insert general intent, specific intent or mental state required>, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Points and Authorities
Need To Specify Whether Intoxication Is Voluntary Or Involuntary – Unless the involuntary nature of the intoxication is relevant, there is no need to specify whether it is involuntary or voluntary.
See FORECITE F 3402 Inst 1.
F 3427 Inst 2 Defendant Does Not Need To Prove Intoxication
See CALCRIM 3400; see also FORECITE F 401.6 Inst 1.
F 3427 Inst 3 Jurors Must Unanimously Reject Any Defenses Before Convicting
See FORECITE F 3500.2 Inst 4.
F 3427 Inst 4 Deletion Of Misleading “Assuming The Risk” Language
*Modify CC 3427, paragraph 2, as follows [deleted language is stricken]:
A person is voluntarily intoxicated if he or she becomes intoxicated by willingly using any intoxicating drug, drink, or other substance knowing that it could produce an intoxicating effect, or willingly assuming the risk of that effect.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 3426 Inst 3.
F 3427 Inst 5 Knowing Ingestion Of Prescription Medication Without Knowledge Of Its Intoxicating Effect
Alternative a:
*Replace CC 3427 with the following [CC 3400 adaption]:
The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed ________ <insert crime[s] charged> with ________ <insert specific intent or mental state required>. The defendant contends that (he/she) did not have the required [intent] [and] [mental state] due in whole or part to (his/her) intoxication which resulted when (he/she) knowingly ingested a prescription medication but did not know or have reason to anticipate its intoxicating effect. However, the defendant does not need to prove that (he/she) did not have the required [intent] [and] [mental state].
If, after consideration of all the evidence, including any evidence of defendant’s intoxication, you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant committed the crime with _________ <insert specific intent or mental state required>, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Alternative b:
Add to CC 3227:
Involuntary intoxication may also result from the knowing ingestion of prescription medication without knowing or having reason to anticipate its intoxicating effect.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
The CALCRIM Deficiency – The CALCRIM instruction on involuntary intoxication is inadequate because it fails to provide that a person can be involuntarily intoxicated if he or she knowingly ingested a prescription medication but did not know or have reason to anticipate its intoxicating effect. (See People v. Chaffey (1994) 25 CA4th 852, 857.)
Need To Specify Whether Intoxication Is Voluntary Or Involuntary – Unless the involuntary nature of the intoxication is relevant, there is no need to specify whether it is involuntary or voluntary. (See FORECITE F 625.2 Inst 5.)
Identification Of Parties – See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization – To preserve federal claims counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases, additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 3427 Inst 6 Consideration Of Intoxication Regarding Voluntariness And Trustworthiness Of Defendant’s Statements
See FORECITE F 3426 Inst 8.
F 3427 NOTES
F 3427 Note 1 Involuntary Intoxication Based On Ingestion Of Prescription Medication
“[T]he CALCRIM instructions on involuntary intoxication are inadequate.” (People v. Holloway DEPUB’D (2008) 164 CA4th 269.) “CALCRIM No. 3427 should be modified to provide that a person can be involuntarily intoxicated if he or she knowingly ingested a prescription medication but did not know or have reason to anticipate its intoxicating effects.” (Holloway at 288; see also People v. Chaffey (1994) 25 CA4th 852, 857.)
See FORECITE F 4.23a and F 4.23b.
F 3427 Note 2 No Reference To Whether Or Not Intoxication Was Voluntary Unless That Issue Is Raised By The Evidence
See FORECITE F 625.2 Inst 5.
