Does a defendant who urges that his mental capacity was impaired by voluntary intoxication at the time of commission of the crime have the burden to go forward with evidence on that issue?

The rule that a defendant who urges that his mental capacity was impaired by voluntary intoxication at the time of commission of an offense, has the burden of going forward with evidence on that issue (People v. Ray, 252 Cal.App.2d 932, 61 Cal.Rptr. 1) is particularly significant in this case, where defendant neither raised nor offered evidence of intoxication as a defense. The only defense presented was that the shooting was the result of an accident that occurred during a struggle with the victim for possession of the gun;

Page 49

'The mere fact that a defendant may have been drinking prior to the commission of a crime does not establish intoxication or require the giving of a requested instruction thereon.' (See People v. Spencer, 60 Cal.2d 64, 67, 31 Cal.Rptr. 782, 383 P.2d 134; People v. Robinson, supra.)