Opinion ID: 1944909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Henry's Voluntary Intoxication Defense

Text: Initially, based upon counsel's investigation of the underlying facts of the case, counsel developed a defense strategy premised on voluntary intoxication after considering and rejecting a defense of insanity. No one challenges the efficacy of counsel's decision to adopt this defense. Voluntary intoxication was a recognized defense at the time of Henry's trial. Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 822 (Fla. 1989) (noting the long-standing rule in Florida that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible in cases involving specific intent); Gurganus v. State, 451 So.2d 817, 822-23 (Fla.1984) (When specific intent is an element of the crime charged, evidence of voluntary intoxication . . . is relevant.) (citing Cirack v. State, 201 So.2d 706 (Fla.1967); Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835 (1891)). Further, the underlying circumstances of the crime provided a substantial factual predicate for this defense. It appears clear from the record that several fact witnesses and three qualified doctors provided the jury with a strong case for the voluntary intoxication defense that was at least sufficient to make the question of whether Henry would have been convicted of first- or second-degree murder a close one. [14] All three of these medical experts provided detailed testimony and strong opinions that Henry was so intoxicated by the effects of cocaine that he was incapable of forming the specific intent required for a conviction of first-degree murder. [15] The State presented only one expert to testify that he did not agree with these three doctors' conclusions regarding Henry's ability to form specific intent. Because of the persuasive evidence from the three doctors, Henry ordinarily would have had at least a chance of being convicted of second-degree murder, a lesser included homicide offense that does not require specific intent to kill. Nevertheless, this chance for an alternative homicide conviction and the life sentence that goes with it was obviously dashed by Henry's counsel's decision to tell this jury about a litany of other horrendous things Henry had done before and that another judge and jury had rejected his defenses and determined he should receive the death penalty.