voluntary intoxication defense in Pennsylvania

2024See Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 653 (Pa. 2008) (requiring that a defendant show that he was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities” to prove a voluntary intoxication defense) (citation omitted).

2023However, the evidence presented “must show that the defendant was unable to form the specific intent to kill because he was so overwhelmed or overpowered by drugs to the point of losing his faculties at the time the crime was committed.” Id. at 908 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 653 (Pa. 2008) (requiring that a defendant show that he was “overwhelmed to the point -7- J-S21030-23 of losing his faculties and sensibilities” to prove a voluntary intoxication defense (citation omitted)).

2024Further, “[e]vidence that the accused ingested alcohol or other intoxicating drug—without more—does not warrant a voluntary intoxication instruction.” Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238, 1363 (Pa. 2013).

2020See Commonwealth v. Reiff, 413 A.2d 672, 674 (Pa. 1980) (quoting 18 Pa.C.S. § 308 of the Crime Code, which codifies the voluntary intoxication defense and explains that it may be offered when relevant “to -7- J-S36038-20 reduce murder from a higher degree to a lower degree of murder.”); Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238, 1263-64 (Pa. 2013) (same).

2019Thus, to prove a voluntary intoxication defense, the defendant must show that he was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities.” Id. (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S31019-19 Instantly, in support of his intoxication defense, Appellant points to the testimony of Anna Johnson and Angel Hall.

2018Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 312 (Pa. 2011). -5- J-A31030-17 Therefore, Appellant’s underlying claim lacks arguable merit because trial counsel could not pursue a voluntary intoxication defense due to Appellant’s failure to admit criminal liability.

2026Commonwealth v. Bardo, 105 A.3d 678, 716 (Pa. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2022Additionally, we do not believe that [Barksdale] set forth sufficient evidence to establish he was entitled to a voluntary intoxication defense, at it is a “very limited defense for first degree murder.” [Commonwealth v. Bardo, 105 A.3d 678, 716 (Pa. 2014)].

2024To succeed on a voluntary intoxication defense, “the evidence presented at trial must show that the defendant was unable to form the specific intent to kill because he was so overwhelmed or overpowered by drugs to the point of losing his faculties at the time the crime was committed.” Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898, 908 (Pa. 2004) (citation omitted). “[W]hether a defendant’s faculties and sensibilities were so overwhelmed with drugs so that he could not form the specific intent to kill is a question of fact solely within the province of the jury, who is free to believe any, all, or non

2024To succeed on a voluntary intoxication defense, “the evidence presented at trial must show that the defendant was unable to form the specific intent to kill because he was so overwhelmed or overpowered by drugs to the point of losing his faculties at the time the crime was committed.” Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898, 908 (Pa. 2004) (citation omitted). “[W]hether a defendant’s faculties and sensibilities were so overwhelmed with drugs so that he could not form the specific intent to kill is a question of fact solely within the province of the jury, who is free to believe any, all, or non

2020See Commonwealth v. Reiff, 413 A.2d 672, 674 (Pa. 1980) (quoting 18 Pa.C.S. § 308 of the Crime Code, which codifies the voluntary intoxication defense and explains that it may be offered when relevant “to -7- J-S36038-20 reduce murder from a higher degree to a lower degree of murder.”); Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238, 1263-64 (Pa. 2013) (same).

2019A defendant is entitled to the instruction only when he "was overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities." Id. (citing Blakeney , 946 A.2d at 653 ; Commonwealth v. Spotz , 587 Pa. 1 , 896 A.2d 1191 , 1218 (2006) ); see also Reiff , 413 A.2d at 674 (explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is justified only when there is evidence that the defendant was "overwhelmed or overpowered by alcoholic liquor to the point of losing his ... faculties or sensibilities").

2015In doing so, Judge Sarmina initially opined that, to the extent Appellant asserts that trial counsel erred in failing to call lay witnesses Larry Lawhorn and Brian Mason in support of a voluntary intoxication defense, 24 such an allegation was previously litigated by this Court on direct appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion filed 11/20/13 at 19-20 (citing Mason, 559 Pa. at 514, n. 6 , 741 A.2d at 716 n. 6).

2015In doing so, Judge Sarmina initially opined that, to the extent Appellant asserts that trial counsel erred in failing to call lay witnesses Larry Lawhorn and Brian Mason in support of a voluntary intoxication defense, 24 such an allegation was previously litigated by this Court on direct appeal, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion filed 11/20/13 at 19-20 (citing Mason, 559 Pa. at 514, n. 6 , 741 A.2d at 716 n. 6).

2013Commonwealth v. Galvin, 603 Pa. 625 , 985 A.2d 783, 798 (2009) (citing Commonwealth v. Tilley, 528 Pa. 125 , 595 A.2d 575, 580 (1991)).

2013Commonwealth v. Galvin, 603 Pa. 625 , 985 A.2d 783, 798 (2009) (citing Commonwealth v. Tilley, 528 Pa. 125 , 595 A.2d 575, 580 (1991)).

2020Spotz, supra. See Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 596 Pa. 510 , 946 A.2d 645, 653 (2008) (requiring that a defendant show that he was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities” to prove a voluntary intoxication defense).

2018See also Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 596 Pa. 510 , 946 A.2d 645, 653 (2008) (requiring that a defendant show that he was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities” to prove a voluntary intoxication defense). -9- J-S72040-17 Specifically, Appellant presented two eyewitnesses, Jourdan Harper and Andre Jackson, who testified that Appellant consumed marijuana and PCP before the murder.

2024Moreover, if “a defendant does not admit that he killed the victim, but rather advances an innocence defense, then evidence on diminished capacity is inadmissible.” Sanchez, 82 A.3d at 977 .

2019See Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943, 972 (Pa. 2013) (“We may not substitute our own judgment for the jury’s, as it is the fact-finder’s province to weigh the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, and believe all, part, or none of the evidence submitted.”).

2019See, e.g. , Breakiron , 524 Pa. at 296 , 571 A.2d at 1041 (explaining that a defendant must demonstrate that he was "overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities" to establish a voluntary intoxication defense to first-degree murder).

2019See, e.g. , Breakiron , 524 Pa. at 296 , 571 A.2d at 1041 (explaining that a defendant must demonstrate that he was "overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities" to establish a voluntary intoxication defense to first-degree murder).

2019A defendant is entitled to the instruction only when he "was overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities." Id. (citing Blakeney , 946 A.2d at 653 ; Commonwealth v. Spotz , 587 Pa. 1 , 896 A.2d 1191 , 1218 (2006) ); see also Reiff , 413 A.2d at 674 (explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is justified only when there is evidence that the defendant was "overwhelmed or overpowered by alcoholic liquor to the point of losing his ... faculties or sensibilities").

2019A defendant is entitled to the instruction only when he "was overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities." Id. (citing Blakeney , 946 A.2d at 653 ; Commonwealth v. Spotz , 587 Pa. 1 , 896 A.2d 1191 , 1218 (2006) ); see also Reiff , 413 A.2d at 674 (explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is justified only when there is evidence that the defendant was "overwhelmed or overpowered by alcoholic liquor to the point of losing his ... faculties or sensibilities").

2025The amended petition contained fourteen claims: 1) trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the venire from Lancaster County; 2) the Commonwealth violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)3 and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal; 3) the Commonwealth violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)4 by suppressing material impeachment evidence regarding a Commonwealth agreement with Laumann, and trial counsel were ineffective for failing to impeach Laumann’s testimony; 4) the trial court’s voluntary intoxication instruction was in

2025He notes the Third Circuit found error with a similar instruction in Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240, 254-57 (3d Cir. 2002) (declaring as “erroneous” a voluntary intoxication instruction which provided, “you cannot find the defendant guilty of first degree murder unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was so intoxicated at the time that he was incapable of judging his acts and their consequences or incapable of forming a willful, deliberate and premeditated design to kill”).

2024But cf. Commonwealth v. Griscom, 600 A.2d 996, 997 (Pa. Super. 1991) (observing that “[w]hile involuntary intoxication may, as an abstract principle, be a defense to a crime, no Pennsylvania appellate court has yet to hold that the defense of involuntary intoxication is a viable one”); Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636, 639 (Pa. Super. 2003) (noting that “Pennsylvania[,] like many other jurisdictions, either by statute or caselaw, specifically limits the availability of a voluntary intoxication defense but does not specify whether an involuntary intoxication defense is available”).

2020See Commonwealth v. Marinelli, 690 A.2d 203, 220-21 (Pa. 1997) (holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to give a voluntary intoxication charge because, even though there was testimony that appellant had consumed alcohol prior to the killing, no evidence showed appellant was incapable of forming intent to kill).

2019Commonwealth v. Johnson , 630 Pa. 493 , 107 A.3d 52 , 89 (2014).

2019Commonwealth v. Johnson , 630 Pa. 493 , 107 A.3d 52 , 89 (2014).

2018Commonwealth v. Buksa, 655 A.2d 576, 582 (Pa. Super. 1995) (emphasis added). -3- J-S17030-18 Here, Brundage avers Attorney Kolcharno’s failure to evaluate his sobriety precluded him from raising a voluntary intoxication defense.

2017In response, the Commonwealth need not “disprove a negative.” Commonwealth v. Rose, 321 A.2d 880, 884 (Pa. 1974).

2017In other words, to prove a voluntary intoxication defense, the defendant must show that he was “overwhelmed to the point of losing his faculties and sensibilities.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 946 A.2d 645, 653 (Pa. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Collins, 810 A.2d 698, 701 (Pa. Super. 2002) (concluding, generally, defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence when a defense is asserted that relates to the defendant's mental state or to information that is peculiarly within the defendant's own knowledge and control.).