Court Opinion

ID: 9638783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:53:53.123597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:58.804650
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant urges that he was entitled to have the jury instructed to the effect that if he was sick, or was suffering from loss of sleep, or his condition was the result of his use of aspirin *399dr anaciri, and that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, they should acquit, and that wé erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.
As the basis for his contention, appellant relies upon and cites numerous cases holding that an accused is always entitled to have submitted to the jury affirmative defenses that may be raised by the evidence. He contends that the rule stated is applicable here.
We do not differ with appellant as to the correctness of the rule. Our conclusion is that the evidence, especially that referred to, does not present an affirmative defense which, if true, would authorize appellant’s acquittal. In other words, appellant admitted that he had recently drunk two bottles of beer. His guilt or innocence before the jury was made to depend, then, not upon whether he had drunk intoxicants but, rather, whether he was under the influence of the intoxicants he had drunk.
Under such circumstances, the fact that he might also have been sick, or might have lost sleep, or might have taken aspirin or anacin, would not have rendered him guiltless.
It will also be remembered that the charges which appellant requested also incorporated an instruction that the matters referred to therein constituted a defense only in connection with the jury’s having a reasonable doubt as to whether appellant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time.
We remain convinced that the facts did not require the giving of the requested charges.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.