When will a jury consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in the context of a specific intent crime?

A jury may consider evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication and its effect on the required mental state to a limited extent. ( 29.4, subd. (b) ["Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually formed a required specific intent"].) Defendant argues the jury should have been instructed to consider whether his alleged voluntary intoxication prevented him from forming the specific intent to dissuade a witness by force or threat. (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 68-69 [the crime of dissuading a witness by force or threat requires proof of defendant's specific intent].) However, trial counsel could well have decided that such an instruction would have been no help to defendant, as there was scant evidence of defendant's alcohol or drug use at the time he sent the threatening text messages, and no evidence that such alcohol or drug use prevented him from forming the intent necessary for the crime of dissuading a witness.

Page 10

"A defendant is entitled to . . . an instruction [on voluntary intoxication as a defense to a specific intent crime] only where there is substantial evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant's 'actual formation of specific intent.' " (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677.) Merely showing that defendant consumed alcohol or drugs before committing a crime, without evidence of their effect on him, would have been insufficient to warrant an instruction on voluntary intoxication. (Id. at pp. 677-678 [even if evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication was "substantial," the instruction was properly denied because "there was no evidence at all that voluntary intoxication had any effect on defendant's ability to formulate intent"].)