Court Opinion

ID: 9723190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:05:45.353747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:45.421997
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(concurring specially)-
I believe the issue of the propriety of the instructions dealing with intoxication was so fundamental to the defense that the failure to propose an instruction should not prevent the issue from being raised on appeal. 75 Am.Jur.2d, Trial, § 578. The objections made by the defense counsel were sufficient to preserve the issue on appeal.
Even though the issue was properly raised, I concur in the affirmance of the conviction. The recent cases indicate that insanity resulting from voluntary intoxica*234tion by one who has been warned not to drink is not an insanity defense but must be accepted, if at all, as an exception to the general rule that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime. Kane v. United States, 1969, 9 Cir., 399 F.2d 730; United States v. Jewett, 1971, 8 Cir., 438 F.2d 495. The only exception to the general rule now recognized by the courts is that intoxication can be considered in determining whether a defendant had the requisite specific intent to commit the crime, and the jury was properly instructed on that issue. The defendant was not entitled to a special instruction on temporary insanity resulting from intoxication in light of the fact that he had been warned not to drink and voluntarily chose to do so.
I am authorized to state that Justice Porter joins in this special concurrence.