voluntary intoxication instruction in California

2026(People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 647, 677-678 ; accord, Olivas, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at pp. 771-772; People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 295 [defendant is entitled to voluntary intoxication instruction only where there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s actual formation of specific intent].) Williams held a defendant convicted of first degree murder was not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction in the face of evidence he was “ ‘probably spaced out’ ” on the morning of the killings, and his

2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 , citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Even when requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction, a “defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ; see also [ ] Saille[, at p. 1117] [explaining that a defendant charged with murder is free to show that ‘because of his mental illness or voluntary intoxication, he did n

2026(People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 647, 677-678 ; accord, Olivas, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at pp. 771-772; People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 295 [defendant is entitled to voluntary intoxication instruction only where there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s actual formation of specific intent].) Williams held a defendant convicted of first degree murder was not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction in the face of evidence he was “ ‘probably spaced out’ ” on the morning of the killings, and his

2025(People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 295 (Verdugo).) “ ‘[A] defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s “actual formation of specific intent.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Consequently, “[e]vidence of voluntary intoxication without evidence of its effect on a defendant’s ability to formulate specific intent is insufficient to establish the defense.” (People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902 , 918 (Serrano).) For example, in People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635,

2016First, his argument ignores the “long- standing general rule . . . that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given.” (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 145 [“Any lack of clarity regarding the consideration, if any, the jury should give to evidence of voluntary intoxication, in the absence of a request for an instruction on this subject, is of the defendant’s doing, and on appeal he cannot avail himself of his own inaction”], disapproved on other grounds in People

2016The Attorney General argues that the evidence did not support giving a voluntary intoxication instruction in connection with attempted false imprisonment, relying on People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Doolin (2005) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .

2021(People v. Vasquez (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1520 ; People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114 , 1134–1135.) III.

2021(See People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1134 [evidence of voluntary intoxication, even where legally relevant, may be factually unconvincing; the factfinder is entitled to reject a voluntary intoxication claim].) II.

2016(See People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 643 [failure to request voluntary intoxication instruction was not ineffective assistance where it would have been inconsistent with defendant’s theory of the case].) Defense counsel was not deficient in failing to request a voluntary intoxication instruction.

2015Accordingly, “we cannot say that defense counsel had no rational tactical purpose in not requesting an instruction on intoxication.” (See People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 643 [rejecting defendant’s claim his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a voluntary intoxication instruction because such a request “would have been inconsistent with defendant's theory of the case”].) Separately and alternatively, defendant cannot show prejudice.

2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 , citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Even when requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction, a “defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ; see also [ ] Saille[, at p. 1117] [explaining that a defendant charged with murder is free to show that ‘because of his mental illness or voluntary intoxication, he did n

2022(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 , citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Even when requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction, a “defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ; see also [ ] Saille[, at p. 1117] [explaining that a defendant charged with murder is free to show that ‘because of his mental illness or voluntary intoxication, he did n

2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 , citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Even when requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction, a “defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ; see also [ ] Saille[, at p. 1117] [explaining that a defendant charged with murder is free to show that ‘because of his mental illness or voluntary intoxication, he did n

2022(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 , citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Even when requesting a voluntary intoxication instruction, a “defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068, 1119 ; see also [ ] Saille[, at p. 1117] [explaining that a defendant charged with murder is free to show that ‘because of his mental illness or voluntary intoxication, he did n

2026(Id. at p. 677.) The court held that even if the “scant” evidence was substantial, there was “no evidence at all that voluntary intoxication had any effect on defendant’s ability to formulate intent.” (Williams, at pp. 677-678; see also People v. Ivans (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1662 [substantial evidence did not support an instruction on voluntary intoxication where, even though the defendant testified “he had been high on speed for a month and had been awake for three or four days,” the defendant “gave detailed testimony about the events” on the morning of the crime].) Here, Ortega’s ability

2020(People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1 , 39–40.) To warrant a voluntary intoxication instruction, there must be substantial evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication and that “‘the intoxication affected the defendant’s “actual formation of specific intent.”’” (People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 295 .) In other words, even if requested, “an intoxication instruction is not required when the evidence shows that a defendant ingested drugs or was drinking, unless the evidence also shows he became intoxicated to the point he failed to form the requisite intent or attain the requisite

2026(People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 647, 677-678 ; accord, Olivas, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at pp. 771-772; People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263, 295 [defendant is entitled to voluntary intoxication instruction only where there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s actual formation of specific intent].) Williams held a defendant convicted of first degree murder was not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction in the face of evidence he was “ ‘probably spaced out’ ” on the morning of the killings, and his

2022(See People v. Olivas (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th, 758, 771 [“Though defendant argues on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a voluntary intoxication instruction, such a request would have been inconsistent with the primary defense theory ….”].) 5 The People maintain the claim is forfeited.

2016The Attorney General argues that the evidence did not support giving a voluntary intoxication instruction in connection with attempted false imprisonment, relying on People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646 , overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Doolin (2005) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .

2014“Counsel’s failure to make a futile or unmeritorious motion or request is not ineffective assistance.” (People v. Szadziewicz (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 823, 836 .) As explained, the record discloses no evidence sufficient to support a voluntary intoxication instruction. 17 “‘[A] defendant has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense [citations]; however, a trial judge must only give those instructions which are supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] Further, a trial judge has the authority to refuse requested instructions on a defense theory for which there is n

2016Section 29.4, subdivision (b), provides: “Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought.” However, “[a] defendant is entitled to [a voluntary intoxication] instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ ” (People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p.

2014“Normally, merely showing that the defendant had consumed alcohol or used drugs before the offense, without any showing of their effect on him, is not enough to warrant an instruction.” (People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1241 ; People v. Bandhauer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 524, 528 .) People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158 , 1180-1181 presents similar facts and is instructive.

2016(Ibid.; see People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 187 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ] [even if instructions on voluntary intoxication were inadequate, error harmless where, among other things, prosecutor did not argue that jury could not consider voluntary intoxication and defendants did not “actually argue[] a voluntary intoxication defense to the jury”].) Finally, the asserted errors were not prejudicial because there was no evidence that Johnson’s ingestion of alcohol and drugs on the day of the murder affected his ability to understand that Crocker intended to commit robbe

2016(Ibid.; see People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 187 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746 , 235 P.3d 62 ] [even if instructions on voluntary intoxication were inadequate, error harmless where, among other things, prosecutor did not argue that jury could not consider voluntary intoxication and defendants did not “actually argue[] a voluntary intoxication defense to the jury”].) Finally, the asserted errors were not prejudicial because there was no evidence that Johnson’s ingestion of alcohol and drugs on the day of the murder affected his ability to understand that Crocker intended to commit robbe

2013Code, § 29.4;2 People v. Turk (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1381 ; People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1298 .) Because the trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to provide modifications or additions to accurate statements of law, defendant was required to request any modifications or additions to the voluntary intoxication instruction.

2013(See People v. Bryant, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 968 ["A defendant commits voluntary manslaughter when a homicide that is committed either with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life—and therefore would normally constitute murder—is nevertheless reduced or mitigated to manslaughter. [Citation.]"], 970 [voluntary manslaughter requires either an intent to kill or a conscious disregard for life].) By referring to "intent to kill" rather than to express malice or its legal equivalent ("intent to unlawfully kill"), the trial court's voluntary intoxication instruction failed to properly

2025Legal Principles “ ‘A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury “sua sponte on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court.” [Citation.]’ . . .” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 ; see People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 (Breverman).) This obligation includes the duty to give instructions on lesser included offenses, if there is substantial evidentiary support for them. ( Breverman, supra, at p. 160 .) We review de novo the claim that a trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law.

2025Legal Principles “ ‘A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury “sua sponte on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court.” [Citation.]’ . . .” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 ; see People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 (Breverman).) This obligation includes the duty to give instructions on lesser included offenses, if there is substantial evidentiary support for them. ( Breverman, supra, at p. 160 .) We review de novo the claim that a trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law.

2026(People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1017 .) Espino contends that there was no conceivable tactical reason for requesting the mental impairment instruction but not the voluntary intoxication instruction.

2025(People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 .) We conclude that trial counsel reasonably could have chosen not to request a voluntary intoxication instruction as a matter of trial strategy.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.5th at pp. 677–678.) Finally, even if the court should have given the voluntary intoxication instruction, the error was not prejudicial under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , for the same reasons.

2020(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) The voluntary intoxication instruction was given in connection with the attempted murder charge and the gang enhancement allegations.

2020(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 687– 688; People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181 , 198.) Johnson argues defense counsel should have requested a voluntary intoxication instruction based on his trial testimony.

2015In light of the foregoing considerations, we cannot say that Soto’s counsel’s decision not to pursue or call an expert regarding voluntary intoxication falls outside the “wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (In re Valdez (2010) 49 Cal.4th 715, 729-730 [quoting Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 689 ].) 10 In addition, Soto cannot show that he suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense.

2016First, his argument ignores the “long- standing general rule . . . that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given.” (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 145 [“Any lack of clarity regarding the consideration, if any, the jury should give to evidence of voluntary intoxication, in the absence of a request for an instruction on this subject, is of the defendant’s doing, and on appeal he cannot avail himself of his own inaction”], disapproved on other grounds in People

2014(See Rundle, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 145 .) In other words, appellant was required to request any modifications or additions to the voluntary intoxication instruction.