Tag Archives: Defense Theory: Intoxication


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
March 21st, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice.   These defects in the CALCRIM instructions […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
February 27th, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice.   These defects in the CALCRIM instructions […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
January 24th, 2023

This post Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM addressed the failure of the CALCRIM instructions to include the required element when the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting a perpetrator who is alleged to have acted with implied malice. These defects in the CALCRIM instructions were […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Aider And Abettor Liability For Implied Malice Murder: Required Elements Not Included in CALCRIM
November 30th, 2022

Direct aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus of the participants and the aider and abettor’s “own mens rea.” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122; see also People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712-13.) The aider and abettor’s mens rea includes several subjective mental elements as observed by People […]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Involuntary Unconsciousness from Prescription Medication
June 1st, 2015

  The Mathson case makes it clear that if a defendant did not know and could not have reasonably known that his use of Ambien could cause sleep driving, this was involuntary intoxication and the resulting unconsciousness was a complete defense to driving under the influence. (People v. Mathson (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 1297.)


Tags: , ,


CC 404: Intoxication Not To Be Considered Vis-A-Vis Natural and Probable Consequences
January 30th, 2014

  Based on People v. Mendoza (1998) Cal. 4th 1114, 1122-23, People v. Curry (2007) 158 Cal. App. 4th 766, approved CC 404’s admonition to not consider intoxication in deciding whether certain crimes are the natural and probable consequence of the commission of designated target offenses.


Tags: , , ,