Opinion ID: 2363669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Insufficient Evidence of Intoxication

Text: In State v. Johnson, 258 Kan. 475, 485-86, 905 P.2d 94 (1995), this court stated: Unless evidence is presented that shows intoxication to the extent that a defendant's ability to form the requisite intent was impaired, an instruction on the defense of voluntary intoxication is not required. State v. Gadelkarim, 247 Kan. [505,] 508, [802 P.2d 507 (1990)]; see State v. Smith, 254 Kan. 144, Syl. ¶ 2, 864 P.2d 709 (1993); State v. Shehan, 242 Kan. 127, Syl. ¶ 5, 744 P.2d 824 (1987). The defendant has the burden of showing that he or she was so intoxicated that his or her mental faculties were impaired by the consumption of alcohol or drugs. State v. Keeler, 238 Kan. 356, 360, 710 P.2d 1279 (1985). Brown presented evidence of his intoxication to the jury through the testimony of J. Williams, Officer Simmons, and L.H. During Williams' cross-examination testimony, Williams stated that she had heard [t]hrough hearsay that Brown used drugs and that he always mumbled. She also stated that she was not close enough to him that night to see his eyes. During direct examination by the State, Officer Simmons testified that, when Brown was in the back of the patrol car, he was mumbling, and [h]e was definitely intoxicated. On cross-examination by Brown, Officer Simmons testified that Brown was under the influence of alcohol and he could smell the alcohol. L.H. also testified as to Brown's intoxication. During cross-examination by Brown, L.H. stated that Brown was acting strange all night. She testified that she knew he was drinking that night. During the State's redirect examination, L.H. testified that she knew Brown was drinking because she saw him drink and because he was acting strange. Based on the evidence in the record, it is not apparent that Brown satisfied his burden to show that he was intoxicated enough so that his mental faculties were impaired. In Johnson, the testimony before the jury was that the defendant had consumed beer and was drunk. 258 Kan. at 486, 905 P.2d 94. The court determined that this was insufficient to show that defendant's consumption of beer impaired his mental faculties so as to render him unable to form the requisite intent. Likewise, here, there is testimony that Brown smelled of alcohol and was mumbling, but nothing to support the argument that his mental faculties were impaired.