SERIES 600 ATTEMPTED MURDER
F 625 VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: EFFECTS ON HOMICIDE CRIMES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 625.1 TITLES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
F 625.1 Inst 1 Voluntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes—Title
F 625.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 625.2 INSTRUCTIONS
F 625.2 Inst 1 Related Materials
F 625.2 Inst 2 Relating Intoxication To Mens Rea At The Time Of The Killing
F 625.2 Inst 3 “Consider” vs. “May Consider” Intoxication
F 625.2 Inst 4 Involuntary Manslaughter: Voluntary Intoxication Short Of Unconsciousness (PC 192)
F 625.2 Inst 5 No Reference To Whether Or Not Intoxication Was Voluntary Unless That Issue Is Raised By The Evidence
F 625.2 Inst 6 Involuntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes
F 625.2 Inst 7 Consideration Of Intoxication Regarding Voluntariness And Trustworthiness Of Defendant’s Statements
F 625 NOTES
F 625 Note 1 Voluntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes CALCRIM Cross References And Research Notes
F 625 Note 2 Involuntary Manslaughter When Defendant Intentionally Commits An ADW Without Intent To Kill
Return to Series 600 Table of Contents.
F 625.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 625.1 Inst 1 Voluntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes—Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 625.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
See generally FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005 and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.
F 625.2 Voluntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories
F 625.2 Inst 1 Related Materials
See FORECITE F 3426 and F 3427.
F 625.2 Inst 2 Relating Intoxication To Mens Rea At The Time Of The Killing
*Modify CC 625, paragraph 1, sentence 2 as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
You mayConsider that evidence only in deciding, if you can, whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the killing, the defendant acted with an intent to kill[,] [or] [the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation[,]] [[or] the defendant was unconscious when (he/she) acted[,]] [or the defendant ________ <insert other specific intent required in a homicide charge or other charged offense>.]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank #CCM-001.]
“At The Time Of The Killing” : Criminal Mens Rea Must Be Harbored At The Time Of Killing— See PC 20; see also FORECITE F 251 Inst 3.
“Consider” vs. “May Consider” — See FORECITE F 105.2 Inst 1.
Decide “If You Can”— See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.
No Reference To “The People”— The defendant objects to use of the term “the People” in this instruction and throughout this trial. [See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.]
Use Of The Term “Defendant”— The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank #CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
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 625.2 Inst 3 “Consider” vs. “May Consider” Intoxication
See FORECITE F 625.2 Inst 2.
F 625.2 Inst 4 Involuntary Manslaughter: Voluntary Intoxication Short Of Unconsciousness (PC 192)
See FORECITE F 626.2 Inst 2.
F 625.2 Inst 5 No Reference To Whether Or Not Intoxication Was Voluntary Unless That Issue Is Raised By The Evidence
Absent evidence of involuntary intoxication modify CC 625 as follows:
¶ 1, sentence 1, delete “voluntary”;
¶ 2, delete or modify to read 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.
¶ 3, delete “voluntary.”
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request – [See CALCRIM Motion Bank #CCM-001.]
The CALCRIM Deficiency – Unless substantial evidence of involuntary intoxication was presented there should be no material question about the voluntariness of the intoxication. By unnecessarily raising the issue of the “voluntariness” of the defendant’s intoxication CC 625 improperly invites the jury to impugn the defendant’s character and to punish him because he “voluntarily” chose to assume the risk of his intoxication. Hence, the superfluous voluntariness language is erroneous because it “creates a substantial risk of misleading the jury to the defendant’s prejudice.” [Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.] (People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 CA4th 175, 238.) Moreover, the voluntariness language is superfluous because the jurors ordinarily should not be concerned with whether or not the defendant’s intoxication was voluntary and whether or not he assumed any kind of risk. Absent substantial evidence that the intoxication was involuntary, the jurors only function should be to determine the extent of the defendant’s intoxication and whether such intoxication negated any intent of mental state to which the intoxication is relevant. (See CC 625, Bench Notes [“. . . intoxication can be used to negate an element of the crime that must be proved by the prosecution”].)
Additionally, the “assuming the risk” language in CC 625 could erroneously mislead the jurors into concluding that the defendant must assume the risk of being convicted even though his intoxication precluded his formation of a required intent or mental state. Thus, the instruction may improperly allow conviction without requiring the jurors to find all essential facts and elements of the charge. (See In re Winship (1970) 397 US 358 [25 LEd2d 368; 90 SCt 1068]; see also FORECITE F 3426 Inst 3.)
Accordingly, CC 6256 should be modified as set forth above.
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]
FORECITE CG 7.2 [Jury’s Duty To Fully And Fairly Apply The Law]
In death penalty cases additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 625.2 Inst 6 Involuntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes
Alternative a [CC 3427 adaption]:
Consider any evidence that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated in deciding, if you can, whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant acted with an intent to kill[,] [or] [the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation[,]] [[or] the defendant was unconscious when (he/she) acted[,]] [or the defendant ________ <insert other intent required in a homicide charge or other charged offense>.]
Alternative b [CC 625 adaption]:
Evidence has been presented that defendant was [involuntarily] intoxicated at the time of the alleged ________ <insert charge>. You may consider this evidence to decide, if you can, whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant acted with an intent to kill[,] [or] [the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation[,]] [[or] the defendant was unconscious when (he/she) acted[,]] [or the defendant_________ <insert other intent required in a homicide charge or other charged offense>.]
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request – [See CALCRIM Motion Bank #CCM-001.]
The CC Deficiency – The CALCRIM instructions on intoxication and homicide are limited to voluntary intoxication only. Clearly involuntary intoxication should be available to negate all the intent and mental state elements of homicide. “Unconsciousness due to involuntary intoxication is recognized as a complete defense to a criminal charge.” (People v. Cruz (1978) 83 CA3d 308, 330.) Moreover, involuntary intoxication short of unconsciousness may negate both the intent and mental state elements of a charged crime. (See, e.g., CC 3427; CJ 4.23.) And, it has also been held that an irrational mistake of fact should be considered reasonable because his delusional state was caused by involuntary intoxication. (People v. Scott (1983) 146 CA3d 823, 832.) Hence, a mistake of fact instruction may also be justified under PC 26(3). (See CC 3427, COMMENTARY.) In sum, an instruction specifically relating involuntary intoxication to a homicide charge should be given if requested. (See also FORECITE F 3427 et. seq.; F 4.22 a & b; F 4.23 a & b; 4.30a.)
“Consider” vs. “May Consider” – See FORECITE F 105.2 Inst 1.
Decide “If You Can” – See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.
No Reference To “The People”– The defendant objects to use of the term “the People” in this instruction and throughout this trial. [See FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1; CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.]
Use Of The Term “Defendant” – The defense requests that the defendant be referred to by name throughout this trial and in the jury instructions. [See CALCRIM Motion Bank #CCM-005.] By using the term “defendant” in this instructional request, the defense does not withdraw the request.
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]
FORECITECG 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 625.2 Inst 7 Consideration Of Intoxication Regarding Voluntariness And Trustworthiness Of Defendant’s Statements
See FORECITE F 3426 Inst 8.
F 625 Notes
F 625 Note 1 Voluntary Intoxication: Effects On Homicide Crimes CALCRIM Cross References And Research Notes
CALCRIM Cross-References:
CALCRIM 624
CALCRIM 626
CALCRIM 627
Research Notes:
See CLARAWEB Forum, Homicide—Series 500-700.
F 625 Note 2 Involuntary Manslaughter When Defendant Intentionally Commits An ADW Without Intent To Kill
Even if the defendant intentionally commits an assault with a deadly weapon, if there was no intent to kill, then instruction upon involuntary manslaughter is required if requested. (People v. Welch (1982) 137 CA3d 834, 840-41; see also People v. Rhodes (1989) 215 CA3d 470, 474 [no sua sponte duty].)
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 8.47 n4.
