Court Opinion

ID: 9632736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:23:43.509918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:21.870279
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
dissenting:
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it would have been proper for the trial court to omit any instruction on intoxication. However, once the trial judge decides that an instruction is warranted he has a duty to ensure that the instruction *644given is a complete and accurate statement of law. In this case, the trial court’s instruction (see Majority at 638 n. 2), was an incomplete instruction concerning intoxication. As the Majority recognizes, there is an exception to 21 O.S.1981, § 153, that applies “where the accused was so intoxicated that his mental abilities were totally overcome and it therefore became impossible for him to form criminal intent.” (Majority at 638).
This Court considered an identical issue in Williams v. State, 513 P.2d 335 (Okl.Cr.1973), and held that “[i]f the trial court in its discretion found under the evidence presented that an instruction on the intoxication should be submitted, then the instruction submitted should instruct the jury on all law pertaining to intoxication and homicide.” Id. at 339. In Williams, we found that the failure to give a complete instruction on intoxication was reversible error. Id. See also Stanley v. State, 762 P.2d 946, 949 (Okl.Cr.1988) (when an instruction on intoxication is appropriate, it is reversible error not to instruct the jury that intoxication can negate specific intent to kill). Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.