CAN EVIDENCE OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION BE USED TO FIND "IMPLIED MALICE?"
BARRING EVIDENCE OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION ON IMPLIED MALICE
In 1996 the United States Supreme Court Montana v. Egelhoff (518 U.S. 37). The
crucial 5th vote, Ginsburg, said that Montana redefined murder to make it a crime for a person to do the act with awareness, where that awareness would exist but for the intoxication, and that was OK.
The California First District Court of Appeal here claims that California has done the same by enacting California penal Code sec. 22, barring evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate the capacity to commit a crime. Penal Code sec. 22 also says voluntary intoxication is admissible on the issue of whether a defendant actually formed the intent required for the
crime.
This Court of Appeal says that voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to refute implied malice. This is just conceptually wrong. The mental state of conscious disregard for human life, which implied malice requires, is refuted by voluntary intoxication resulting in the failure
to have such conscious disregard.
People v. Timms; 2007 DJ DAR 8597; DJ, 6/13/07; C/A 1st
San Diego DUI Defense, El Cajon DUI Defense, California DUI Homicide Defense, Chula Vista DUI Defense
