Court Opinion

ID: 9728872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:18:01.64652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:52.568642
License: Public Domain

*17ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. I cannot, however, subscribe to the majority’s analysis of appellant’s “intoxication” claim. Despite the bold assertion of the majority, there is no evidence that our Legislature intends “that a defendant be overwhelmed or overpowered by alcoholic liquor to the point of losing his or her faculties or sensibilities before an intoxication instruction be given.” Rather, there need exist only a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s sobriety at the time of the offense to justify an intoxication instruction. American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, § 1.13 Comment at p. 108 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1975). See e. g., Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 285, 361 A.2d 282 (1975). In my view, there is no evidence here creating such a doubt. See Kichline, supra. The trial court thus properly declined to instruct the jury on intoxication.
EAGEN, C. J., and NIX, J., join in this concurring opinion.