Title: State v. Dana

State: washington

Issuer: Washington Supreme Court

Document:

73 Wn.2d 533 (1968) 439 P.2d 403 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JERRY DANA, Appellant.[*] No. 39221. The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two. April 4, 1968. Patrick M. Steele, for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal). Ronald L. Hendry, Joseph D. Mladinov, and Eugene G. Olson, for respondent. WALTERSKIRCHEN, J.[] This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence following a verdict of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree. Appellant testified that he was 23 years of age and had been using drugs and barbituates for kicks before he was 19, and since, has been using heroin, morphine, dilaudid, desbutal, valium, darvon, doriden, deprol, demerol, seconal, and sodium nembutal; *534 that as a result of using such drugs "You see things, or you black out, and you do things without knowing that you did them"; that, at the time of the burglary, he was "shooting wyamine, desbutal, and a little demerol and things of that nature, codeine"; and that he was totally without knowledge or recollection of the burglary. At the close of the evidence, appellant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: Instead, the court gave the following instruction, No. 11-A: In addition, the court gave instruction No. 12: Plaintiff's only assignment of error is: The thrust of appellant's argument as he stated it was: In short, appellant contends that the instruction given was confusing and failed to state his theory of the case. The term "intoxication" is defined by Merriam-Webster Third International Dictionary (1963) as "1: poisoning or the abnormal state induced by a chemical agent (as a drug, serum, toxin) ... 2 a: the quality or state of being drunk: inebriation." It also defines "intoxicate" as "1: poison 2 a: to excite or stupefy by alcoholic drinks or a narcotic, esp. to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished...." The Oxford English Dictionary defines "intoxication" as "2. The action of rendering stupid, insensible, or disordered in intellect, with a drug or alcoholic liquor; the making drunk or inebriated; the condition of being so stupefied or disordered." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Second Edition, defines an intoxicant as "something that intoxicates; specifically (a) a drug that intoxicates; (b) alcoholic liquor." And, in People v. Bevilacqua, 12 Misc.2d 558, 568, 170 N.Y.S.2d 423, 433 (1958), rev'd per curiam, 5 N.Y.2d 867, 155 N.E.2d 865 (1958): [1] It is clear that the term "intoxication" refers to an impaired mental and bodily condition which may be produced either by alcohol, which is a drug, or by any other drug. *536 The statutes of the state of Washington with respect to the mental condition of a person charged with a crime when such condition is a result of the voluntary act of the person charged, are RCW 10.76.010 and RCW 9.01.114. The pertinent portion of the first statute reads: RCW 9.01.114 reads: [2] While each party is entitled to have his theory of the case set forth in the court's instructions, it is axiomatic that the trial court has considerable discretion in how the instructions will be worded. Roberts v. Goerig, 68 Wn.2d 442, 413 P.2d 626 (1966). It is also axiomatic that the instructions must be read as a whole. Roberts v. Goerig, supra. Instructions Nos. 11-A and 12, read together, clearly informed the jury that the state had the burden of proving that appellant had the necessary intent to commit the crime charged, and that any absence of such intent constituted a defense. *537 [3] If instructions are such as are readily understood and not misleading to the ordinary mind, they are sufficient. Carson v. Old Nat'l Bank, 37 Wash. 279, 79 Pac. 927 (1905). While under the facts of this particular case the court's instruction may not have been ideal, nevertheless, it satisfied the above test for clarity. [4] The test of the sufficiency of instructions given on the theory of the case has been held to be whether, from the instructions given, counsel may satisfactorily argue his theory of the case to the jury. Smith v. McDaniel, 53 Wn.2d 604, 610, 335 P.2d 582 (1959); Short v. Hoge, 58 Wn.2d 50, 56, 360 P.2d 565 (1961). The court's instructions afforded counsel ample opportunity to present his theory to the jury. Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Inasmuch as the state brief was not filed on time, it shall be denied cost. ROA 41 (2). FINLEY, C.J., HUNTER, HAMILTON, and HALE, JJ., concur. [*] Reported in 439 P.2d 403. [] Judge Walterskirchen is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Supreme Court pursuant to Art. 4, § 2(a) (amendment 38), state constitution. [1] Both in his brief and in oral argument, appellant's counsel brought to the court's attention the fact that Mr. Dana had requested that the case of United States v. Freeman, 357 F.2d 606 (2d Cir.1966), which discussed mental irresponsibility, be argued on his behalf. We have considered Mr. Dana's contention in this regard and find it to be without merit. See, also, People v. Arriola, 164 Cal. App. 2d 430, 330 P.2d 683 (1958). [2] California Penal Code, § 22, nearly identical to RCW 9.01.114, has been held to include intoxication due to use of drugs. See People v. Baker, 42 Cal. 2d 550, 268 P.2d 705, 719 (1954); People v. Lim Dum Dong, 26 Cal. App. 2d 135, 78 P.2d 1026 (1938); People v. Sameniego, 118 Cal. App. 165, 4 P.2d 809, 5 P.2d 653 (1931).