Opinion ID: 2633286
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Give Instructions on Intoxication

Text: Defense counsel requested the trial court instruct the jury on intoxication as part of its instructions on other crimes evidence. The trial court stated it would instruct on voluntary intoxication pursuant to former CALJIC Nos. 4.21.1 and 4.22, as it had in the guilt phase, but it failed to do so. Defendant contends the court erred. Although defendant failed to object to the trial court's failure to give the intoxication instructions, we find this issue cognizable because it involves a claim of instructional error affecting his substantial rights. ( People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 843, fn. 8, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673; People v. Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 268, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123; § 1259.) As for the merits, there was insufficient evidence that defendant was intoxicated to warrant the requested instructions. As the People point out, de Maderos testified that defendant did not smell of alcohol. Ramirez testified he did not smell defendant's breath but only thought defendant was drunk because he was walking bent over.