Opinion ID: 1779107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Investigate and Present a Voluntary Intoxication Defense

Text: Dufour asserts that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense, and that if counsel had done so, it could have been demonstrated that Dufour lacked the requisite specific intent to commit premeditated murder. A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel's challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel's perspective at the time. Rolling v. State, 825 So.2d 293, 298 (Fla.2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052). This Court has repeatedly held that evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to prove the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit premeditated murder. See Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 63 (Fla.2003); Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 822 (Fla.1989). In addition, this Court has emphasized that voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense and that the defendant must come forward with evidence of intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient to establish that he was unable to form the intent necessary to commit the crime charged. Linehan v. State, 476 So.2d 1262, 1264 (Fla.1985). Under these guidelines, Dufour's claim fails. The record demonstrates that Dufour's trial counsel considered a voluntary intoxication defense but rejected it for strategic reasons. Specifically, his attorney testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing that he considered the voluntary intoxication defense and even discussed it with his partner. However, he ultimately rejected this approach because it was his view that the most persuasive position in the case would be to advance that Dufour did not commit the killing. Further, the attorney, Dvorak, stated that developing the intoxication defense was difficult because the information he discovered, particularly that of Dufour's girlfriend, Stacey Sigler, was that Dufour was sober at the time of the crime, and that a psychiatric opinion did not indicate whether Dufour was intoxicated at the time of the murder. [3] Dvorak also testified that Dufour did not provide any indication to him that he was intoxicated the day of the murder. The attorney also considered Sigler's testimony that Dufour advised her before the murder occurred of his plan and intent to select an individual to be his robbery victim. Notably, Dvorak testified that he had no desire or intent to present inconsistent theories and defenses to the jury. This Court has held that it will not second-guess counsel's strategic decisions concerning whether an intoxication defense will be pursued. See Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 616 (Fla.2003); see also Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000) (holding that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct). In State v. Williams, 797 So.2d 1235 (Fla.2001), this Court analyzed whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a voluntary intoxication defense at trial and concluded that counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue such defense when the defense would have been inconsistent with Williams' theory of the case that he did not commit the crime. See id. at 1239. Similarly, here, pursuing a voluntary intoxication defense in Dufour's case would have been totally inconsistent with the defense theory presented that Dufour did not commit the murder. The theory of the case advanced during Dufour's trial was that he did not commit the crime but that Robert Taylor, the leader of Dufour's gang, committed the murder. Therefore, similar to this Court's conclusion in Williams, we conclude that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense when it would have been inconsistent with Dufour's theory of the case that he did not commit the crime. Moreover, the evidence known to trial counsel totally undermined the validity of a voluntary intoxication defense. See Stewart v. State, 801 So.2d 59, 65-66 (Fla.2001) (rejecting a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a voluntary intoxication defense where trial counsel testified the defendant had provided a detailed account of the crime and the State's potential experts would reveal the defendant's competency to stand trial). Dvorak made a reasonable strategic decision against arguing inconsistent defense theories to the jury. Dufour actually relies upon the theory that, as a result of his longstanding addiction to drugs and alcohol, he could not have formed the requisite specific intent to commit premeditated murder. Perhaps recognizing that he had no valid claim that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense, Dufour is now attempting to assert that his chronic drug and alcohol abuse had a lasting impact, and that he was under the effects of the drugs and alcohol at the time of the crime. This Court addressed a similar argument in Pietri v. State, 885 So.2d 245 (Fla.2004), where we rejected the assertion that the lasting impact of one's chronic drug abuse while he had little or no cocaine in his bloodstream at the time of the offense was sufficient to establish that he was under the effects of the cocaine to the same extent as if he were legally intoxicated. See id. at 253. Dr. Lipman was the only witness at the evidentiary hearing who opined that Dufour was in a state of chronic intoxication at the time of the murder. However, as in Pietri, even if Dufour's trial counsel had called Dr. Lipman to testify, because Dufour has failed to demonstrate that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the murder, it is unquestionable that the testimony of Dr. Lipman would have been inadmissible. See Pietri, 885 So.2d at 254 (determining that mental health expert's opinion of chronic intoxication is inadmissible in the absence of evidence establishing actual intoxication at the time of the offense). This is really an attempt to present a hidden diminished capacity defense. Moreover, presenting the position that the murder was caused by Dufour's longstanding addiction to drugs and alcohol that would have prevented him from forming the specific intent required for the crime again would have been inconsistent with the defense theory of the case that Dufour did not commit the crime. In sum, the record demonstrates that trial counsel made an informed and reasoned decision not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, which was inconsistent with the underlying defense theory of the case. Moreover, Dufour failed to establish that the defense was viable because he could not demonstrate that he was actually intoxicated at the time of the offense. On this basis, Dufour has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present a voluntary intoxication defense. Therefore, we deny Dufour's claim.