Opinion ID: 1374541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal of Instructions on Manslaughter Based on Diminished Capacity

Text: (14) Defense counsel asked the court to instruct the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses based on diminished capacity, as a result of intoxication, to form the mental states requisite to murder. The request was correctly rejected as lacking support in the evidence. Appellant testified that in the early evening of December 21, he and Klaess purchased a half pint of brandy in Sausalito just before their kidnap-robbery of the woman victim. (That robbery was reported to the police at 9:25 p.m.) He further testified as follows: He and Klaess consumed all the brandy, sharing it equally. In Richmond, they bought a pint of 151 proof rum and some Coca Cola, from which appellant had one mixed drink at the home of their friend in San Pablo and one more mixed drink at Engel's home in Crockett. He also had about three lines of cocaine in Crockett. On leaving Crockett he was under the influence of the alcohol and cocaine and feeling all right but not drunk or overly drunk or high on cocaine. Klaess's testimony was not materially different. She said that of the brandy, she might have had one or two drinks and that appellant had most of it. She said that in addition to the pint of rum, they bought a half pint, all of which she drank. She testified, similarly to appellant, that they each had one drink in San Pablo. She said that in Crockett, she, appellant, Engel, and Engel's boyfriend drank from the pint bottle of rum, and a quarter of the bottle remained unconsumed when she and appellant departed. As for cocaine, Klaess testified that appellant had a lot, eight lines. She said he was under the influence when they left Crockett, in that he was talkative and really hyper. This testimony lent only minimal and insubstantial support to appellant's theory of diminished capacity from intoxication and therefore was not sufficient to justify the requested instruction. ( People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684-685 [160 Cal. Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1].) As in Flannel, appellant had consumed relatively small amounts of alcohol over a period of several hours before commission of the crimes. Although there was testimony that he was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, there was no evidence that his faculties were affected sufficiently to interfere with his capacity to form the mental states requisite to murder. As to the effects of the cocaine, Klaess testified that from her experience cocaine is an upper and alcohol a downer and that they offset each other to some degree. There was no evidence that appellant had incoherent speech, or was driving erratically, during the early morning hours of December 22, and he claimed no unusual difficulty in recalling events during those hours. The request for the instructions was properly denied. ( People v. Harris (1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 958-959 [171 Cal. Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240].)