Case Title: State v. Mello

Citation: 484 P.2d 910, 79 Wash. 2d 279

Docket Number: 

State: washington

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Date: 1971-05-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
79 Wn.2d 279 (1971) 484 P.2d 910 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH MELLO, Respondent. No. 41806. The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. May 6, 1971. WRIGHT, J. Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree in the superior court. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the conviction was reversed. The matter is before this court following a petition for review by the state, which petition for review was granted. The facts are well stated by the Court of Appeals in State v. Mello, 3 Wn. App. 555, 477 P.2d 42 (1970), as follows: Upon the petition for review, only one question is presented, the propriety of instruction No. 11, which reads: (Italics ours.) It was upon the basis of the first sentence of instruction No. 11 the Court of Appeals reversed in State v. Mello, supra. [1] Instruction No. 11 correctly stated the law. It is and always has been the law that voluntary intoxication is not a defense, but if intent is a necessary element of the crime, then the intoxication of defendant can be considered only in so far as it bears on intent. Instruction No. 11 so stated with sufficient clarity that no juror could misunderstand. The instruction, after the first sentence, is substantially in the language of RCW 9.01.114. In order to avoid any future problems, we strongly recommend an instruction such as instruction No. 11 never be given again. The first sentence should be eliminated. We hold the instruction, although imperfect, was not prejudicial error and, therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be and is hereby reversed and the trial court affirmed. HAMILTON, C.J., FINLEY, HUNTER, HALE, NEILL, and STAFFORD, JJ., concur. *282 McGOVERN, J. (dissenting) I dissent. The jury was told that "intoxication is not a defense" to the crime charged. That is not the law. If the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that he could not form the required intention to commit the act, then that intoxication would be a legitimate defense. Because instruction No. 11 was a misstatement of the law, I would reverse the trial court. ROSELLINI, J., concurs with McGOVERN, J.