California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ramirez, B270205 (Cal. App. 2018):
However, such evidence is admissible on the issue of whether the defendant actually formed a required specific intent or, with respect to a charge of murder, whether the defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice aforethought. [Citation.]" (People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1296-1297, fn. omitted.) "A defendant is entitled to such an instruction only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant's 'actual formation of specific intent.' [Citations.]" (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677.)
"[A]bsent a defense request, the trial court had no duty to instruct on voluntary intoxication. [Citations.]" (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1217 (Myles).) Appellant therefore makes only a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to request such an instruction. Appellant's ineffective assistance claim fails for several reasons.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.