intoxication instruction in Kansas

2017State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737 , 545 P.2d 303 (1976); cf. State v. Mader, 261 Kan. 280, 283 , 931 P.2d 1247 (1997) (when defendant relies upon self-defense, his or her attempt to prove victim was aggressor does not, standing alone, place character of victim in issue).

2017State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737 , 545 P.2d 303 (1976); cf. State v. Mader, 261 Kan. 280, 283 , 931 P.2d 1247 (1997) (when defendant relies upon self-defense, his or her attempt to prove victim was aggressor does not, standing alone, place character of victim in issue).

2017I am also baffled by the majority's declaration that "[i]t would be unfair to permit Cheever to testify about his bad character at the time of the murder and to attribute it to his methamphetamine use while refusing to allow the State to explore that testimony with Cheever and rebut it with expert testimony." Slip op. at 15. 65 The majority had already cited to State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737 , 545 P.2d 303 (1976), for the proposition that a defendant does not put his or her character in issue by asserting an intoxication defense.

2017I am also baffled by the majority's declaration that "[i]t would be unfair to permit Cheever to testify about his bad character at the time of the murder and to attribute it to his methamphetamine use while refusing to allow the State to explore that testimony with Cheever and rebut it with expert testimony." Slip op. at 15. 65 The majority had already cited to State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737 , 545 P.2d 303 (1976), for the proposition that a defendant does not put his or her character in issue by asserting an intoxication defense.

1993Jerome was not at all that intoxicated.’ “We find no merit in defendant’s contention concerning the trial court’s refusal to submit an intoxication instruction.” *513 In State v. Gadelkarim, 247 Kan. 505, 508 , 802 P.2d 507 (1990), the court said: “Where the crime charged requires specific intent, voluntary intoxication may be relied on as a defense and an instruction thereon is required if there is evidence to support the defense. [Citations omitted.] It is not error, however, to refuse to give a voluntary intoxication instruction where there is not sufficient evidence to submit the issue of

1993Jerome was not at all that intoxicated.’ “We find no merit in defendant’s contention concerning the trial court’s refusal to submit an intoxication instruction.” *513 In State v. Gadelkarim, 247 Kan. 505, 508 , 802 P.2d 507 (1990), the court said: “Where the crime charged requires specific intent, voluntary intoxication may be relied on as a defense and an instruction thereon is required if there is evidence to support the defense. [Citations omitted.] It is not error, however, to refuse to give a voluntary intoxication instruction where there is not sufficient evidence to submit the issue of

1980In People v. Hayes, 64 Mich. App. 203, 208-9 , 235 N.W.2d 182 (1975), it is stated: “Further, and more importantly, the admission of a defendant’s refusal to submit to an intoxication test would render nugatory the choice which the statute provides him.

1980In People v. Hayes, 64 Mich. App. 203, 208-9 , 235 N.W.2d 182 (1975), it is stated: “Further, and more importantly, the admission of a defendant’s refusal to submit to an intoxication test would render nugatory the choice which the statute provides him.

1979Defendant contends that intoxication was a defense in one count but not in the other, and that the consolidation effectively deprived him of his “legal advantage” (the intoxication defense) referred to in State v. Toelkes, 139 Kan. 682, 684 , 33 P.2d 317 (1934).

1979Defendant contends that intoxication was a defense in one count but not in the other, and that the consolidation effectively deprived him of his “legal advantage” (the intoxication defense) referred to in State v. Toelkes, 139 Kan. 682, 684 , 33 P.2d 317 (1934).

1976(State v. Carter, 220 Kan. 16 , 551 P. 2d 821 , and cases cited therein.) Moreover, it appears doubtful whether an intoxication instruction was warranted under the evidence.

1976(State v. Carter, 220 Kan. 16 , 551 P. 2d 821 , and cases cited therein.) Moreover, it appears doubtful whether an intoxication instruction was warranted under the evidence.

1965(State v. Guthridge, 88 Kan. 846 , 129 Pac. 1143 ; Richardson v. Business Mens Protective Ass'n, 129 Kan. 700 , 284 Pac. 599 .) An intoxication instruction is essential only when intent is a necessary element of the crime.

1965(State v. Guthridge, 88 Kan. 846 , 129 Pac. 1143 ; Richardson v. Business Mens Protective Ass'n, 129 Kan. 700 , 284 Pac. 599 .) An intoxication instruction is essential only when intent is a necessary element of the crime.

1965(State v. Guthridge, 88 Kan. 846 , 129 Pac. 1143 ; Richardson v. Business Mens Protective Ass'n, 129 Kan. 700 , 284 Pac. 599 .) An intoxication instruction is essential only when intent is a necessary element of the crime.

1965(State v. Guthridge, 88 Kan. 846 , 129 Pac. 1143 ; Richardson v. Business Mens Protective Ass'n, 129 Kan. 700 , 284 Pac. 599 .) An intoxication instruction is essential only when intent is a necessary element of the crime.