Opinion ID: 3011009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Instruction Justified?

Text: All of the charged crimes were specific intent crimes, and intoxication can negate specific intent. See United States v. Williams, 892 F.2d 296, 303 (3d Cir. 1989). Davis argues that he was drunk at the relevant times--his January 25 and March 2 meetings with Vittorio--and indeed all witnesses agree that he was drinking heavily on those dates. Michael testified that, immediately before Davis saw Vittorio on January 25, Davis was ossified . .. . [d]runk beyond drunk, slurring, he walked in with two bottles of wine. Michael's testimony indicated that Davis was drunk and slurring throughout the part of the conversation that he witnessed. On his part, Vittorio testified that when he first saw Davis on January 25, he had some jeans on with no shirt and he seemed a little disheveled. He seemed very paranoid. Vittorio and Davis then went to a bar, Jester's Pub in Yonkers, to continue the conversation away from Maria and the Lanteris' baby, and it was at the bar that Davis suggested that Vittorio do something about Sabol and that Vittorio should get Davis a gun. Vittorio testified, however, that Davis did not seem drunk to him. Davis himself testified that he was drinking before he called Michael and that he brought bottles of wine to the Lanteris' apartment. He described himself as drunk throughout the conversation with Vittorio, rambling, and using what was left of my brain. Vittorio testified that the March 2 meeting was similar. They went to Jester's Pub, where Davis again asked for a gun. Davis had more than one drink (vodka and lime) during the conversation and Vittorio testified that he already had a few drinks in him before he met me. . . . He wasn't staggering, because I know he does drink a lot so he probably can handle a few drinks. He was a little buzzed, definitely by the time I left by the way he was driving. After the discussion, Davis drove Vittorio home, and Vittorio testified that he had a few drinks and he was all over the road and I was kind of concerned about him. . . . I remember calling [Michael], telling him that Vinnie [Davis] was really drunk and I was worried that he might crash and kill himself or something . . . . Finally, Vittorio stated 33 that Vinnie was very drunk at the end of their conversation. Davis likewise described himself as hammered and very, very drunk on March 2. In order to justify an intoxication instruction, most courts have held that a defendant needs more than evidence of intoxication. He also needs some evidence of interference with his ability to form the relevant intent. See, e.g., United States v. Nacotee, 159 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Washington, 819 F.2d 221, 225 (9th Cir. 1987). In Government of the Virgin Islands v. Carmona, supra, however, we apparently set forth a different rule, as we found an intoxication instruction required in a felony murder case when the only evidence of intoxication was that the defendant had a large amount to drink. The government argues that our Carmona holding was dicta because we reversed the defendant's conviction on the alternate ground that the jury instructions failed to define robbery as a specific intent crime. However, we specifically found the jury instructions defective in that they failed to explain the materiality of the intoxication evidence. Furthermore, the errors in the intoxication charge and the robbery charge were interrelated, because they both required the jury to be informed about specific intent. We rejected the government's claim that, because there was evidence only of intoxication and not of interference with the defendant's thinking, no intoxication instruction was required. See Carmona, 422 F.2d at 99 n.6. We reversed because of the errors in the charge to the jury. Id. at 101. It may be that our rule is not substantially different than that of other circuits, in that it is often difficult to determine what might qualify as evidence of interference with ability to form intent. Carmona endorses the conclusion, justified by much human experience, that heavy drinking may interfere with a person's ability to form a specific intent. The facts in Carmona--in which the defendant was drinking heavily in a bar, left for a few minutes, and then returned to rob it--suggested that the crime could have occurred without the defendant forming a specific intent to rob. 34 At all events, in Carmona, the evidence justifying the instruction was weaker than it is here, because the only testimony in Carmona was that the defendant was drinking, and the witnesses refused to say that he behaved in a drunken manner. By contrast, Michael testified that Davis was drunk beyond drunk, and Vittorio testified that Davis was drunk and paranoid at their first meeting on January 25, 1994. Vittorio was so concerned about Davis's drunken driving on March 2, 1994, immediately after their second meeting, that he called Michael to express his concern. While the government notes that a jury could conclude that Davis was not drunk at the beginning of the March 2 conversation, there was also evidence from which a jury could conclude that Davis was significantly affected by alcohol at the time of the critical statements. The government argues that there was no need for an instruction because Davis's drinking clearly did not interfere with his ability to form the specific intent to commit the charged crimes. It maintains that Davis's scheme evolved over some period of time, and that he committed his crimes over many weeks. Despite his drunkenness, Davis initiated meetings with Vittorio in order to explain to him why he should not trust Sabol. While drunk, Davis told Vittorio that Sabol was a rat, thus evidencing that his soused mind retained this crucial fact and that he knew that telling Vittorio would further his objective. The evidence plainly showed that Davis had a fairly complex plan to eliminate Sabol from his (Davis's) life. Yet Davis's plan to eliminate Sabol from his life did not, in the main, involve witness tampering; the witness tampering was only a small part of the plan, which was in other respects not unlawful. As we have explained, an intent to expose a person as an informant, while reprehensible, is insufficient to constitute corrupt persuasion under the statute. Thus, Davis's implacable hatred for Sabol and his consistent intent, held drunk and sober, to expose Sabol as a rat was insufficient to make him guilty of witness tampering. To violate the statute, Davis had to intend to corruptly persuade. The two instances of corrupt persuasion, on 35 January 25 and March 2--asking for the gun and suggesting that Vittorio harm Sabol--did not permeate his discussions with Vittorio, and a jury could have believed that Davis blurted them out drunkenly without intending that his requests should be acted upon. Unlike his hatred for Sabol, his acts of corrupt persuasion were not so extensive as to make the intoxication defense implausible. A jury could also find that Davis possessed the requisite intent despite his drinking. But, to uphold Davis's conviction, we would have to find that the missing instruction was harmless error--that it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment. Murray v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 143, 156 (3d Cir. 1998). We cannot say that the error was harmless on this record. See also United States v. Logan, 717 F.2d 84, 92 (3d Cir. 1983) (reversing for plain error where the trial judge had notice of the defense request for an instruction and the evidence showed that the instruction was critical to the defense's theory). Therefore, we will reverse Davis's conviction for witness tampering and remand for a new trial.