Court Opinion

ID: 9734011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:22:38.589217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.062820
License: Public Domain

MOOR, J. pro tem.*
I dissent from the reversal as to Fanning.
Before it becomes mandatory upon the trial court to instruct on intoxication there must be substantial evidence in the record of the defendant's intoxication and its effect upon him. (People v. Spencer, 60 Cal.2d 64 [31 Cal.Rptr. 782, 383 P.2d 134] ; People v. Arriola, 164 Cal.App.2d 430 [330 P.2d 683]; People v. Teale, 63 Cal.2d 178 [45 Cal.Rptr. 729, 404 P.2d 209]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [22 Cal.Rptr. 465, 372 P.2d 297]; People v. Ford, 60 Cal.2d 772, 792-793 [36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892].)
Here, we have a situation quite apart from the usual contention of diminished capacity arising from the overindulgence in intoxicating liquor giving rise to periods of blackouts, no recollection of times and places or of the facts relating to the commission of the offense charged.
In the instant ease defendant Fanning recalls in detail the events surrounding the robbery and his subsequent flight, except that portion relating to the shooting at the officers. Not only did he remember the events at the time of his arrest, but he also remembered them many months later at the trial. This leaves us with the question, does one who partakes of LSD suffer intoxication similar to that which occurs as a result of overindulgence in alcohol or is it an entirely new and different condition? And if the latter be true, to what degree is one’s ability to form specific intent affected ?
*737The question itself supplies the answer. Lacking any expert evidence of the nature of LSD and its effect upon the human mind it would be the gravest error to submit this question to the jury by means of the instruction on intoxication proposed in the majority opinion, compelling them to depend upon fragmentary information obtained from their own research or from articles in magazines and news media, and their own speculations.
If diminished capacity arising from the use of LSD was to be the defendant’s defense to the charge it was encumbent upon him to supply the necessary expert evidence to guide the jury in their determinations. Failing to do this, the court was not in error in not giving the instruction on intoxication. Finally, it taxes the imagination severely to conclude that the jury could bring in any other form of verdict considering the admissions of the defendant that he pointed the gun at the cashier, demanded and took the money from him, then fleeing from the police in a high speed chase, and attempting to stop the police by shooting at them. While it was error for the court to fail to instruct the jury on the elements of the offense charged, the error, however, was not prejudicial here. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 4½; People v. Ford, 60 Cal.2d 772, 792-793 [36 Cal.Rptr. 620, 388 P.2d 892].)
I would affirm the judgment of conviction as to both defendants.
A petition for a rehearing was denied October 4, 1968, and petitions of appellant Blake and the respondent for a hearing by the Supreme Court were denied November 13,1968.

 Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.