FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
Go to
Volume
11 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter
256 Table of Contents
256.7 Mental, Medical Or Physical Impairment Of Defendant
256.7.2 Synergetic Impact Of Mental Impairment, Drugs And/Or Alcohol
256.7.2.1 Expert Testimony As To Combined Effects Of Alcohol And Cocaine
256.7.2.2 Mental Disease Or Defect: When Combined With Intoxication
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
256.7.2.1 Expert Testimony As To Combined Effects Of Alcohol And Cocaine
See FORECITE National™ 256.6.3.3 [Expert Testimony As To Combined Effects Of Alcohol And Cocaine].
RESEARCH NOTES:
See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.8 [Expert Testimony/Scientific Evidence].
See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].
RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:
See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.
See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.
FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
256.7.2.2 Mental Disease Or Defect: When Combined With Intoxication
RATIONALE: When the defense relies on evidence of both intoxication and mental impairment the defendant should have the right to a defense theory instruction so the jury will understand to consider intoxication and mental impairment in combination.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The line between intoxication and mental defect can be unclear. (See e.g., Commonwealth v. Angelone (MA 1992) 594 NE2d 866, 867.) Hence, when the evidence is unclear whether the defendant's mental impairment stems from mental defect, intoxication or both the instructions assure the jury will consider the mental defect and intoxication evidence together. (See People v. Saille (CA 1991) 54 C3d 1103, 1119 [2 CR2d 364]; see also People v. Welch (CA 1964) 61 C2d 786, 789-90 [40 CR 238] [new trial granted based on undiscovered evidence that alcohol combined with brain damage produced insanity]; State v. Bias (FL 1995) 653 So2d 380, 382 [testimony may be given as to whether a given quantity of intoxicants, combined with the mental disease or defect diagnosed in the defendant, rendered the defendant intoxicated to the level that the defendant could not form the required specific intent].)
See also FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.12 [Activation Of Mental Disease Or Insanity By Use Of Alcohol Or Drugs].
FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].
RESEARCH NOTES:
See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].
RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:
See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.
See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In deciding whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed the [mental state of __________] [intent to ______________] [knew ____________], consider any evidence that of the defendant's [mental impairment] [mental disease, defect and/or disorder].
If, after considering the evidence of the defendant's [mental impairment] [mental disease, defect and/or disorder] together with all the other evidence, any jurors has a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the [mental state of __________] [intent to ______________] [knowledge that ____________], that juror must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and vote to find [him] [her] not guilty.
[Cf. CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, CALJIC 3.32 [Evidence of Mental Disease--Received for United Purpose] (West, 6th Ed. 1996).]