Court Opinion

ID: 9679649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:01:28.963928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:17.539591
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. The fact that one does not remember the details of a crime does not mean that he or she did not, at the time, have the intent to commit it. The two are simply not synonymous. In this instance, the defendant had valuables that he had taken from the victim’s car trunk and used the door opener from the car to enter the house. Notably, the expert could only add that the “intoxication could have affected his memory and orientation.” Moreover, with respect to the expert’s testimony, I do not believe that the disallowance of such evidence was harmful. While the defense of intoxication may allow for a defense expert witness, lay persons — jurors—fully understand the mood altering effects of mixing drugs and the resulting intoxication. For these reasons, I believe any error was harmless. I would thus affirm.
CUNNINGHAM, J., joins this dissent.