Court Opinion

ID: 9692738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:02:54.412014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:36.551817
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). In this case, the trial court properly excluded the psychiatrist’s testimony of the effect of the defendant’s intoxication and his psychiatric history on his capacity to form a specific intent. Our holding in Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980), prohibited all expert testimony regarding the defendant’s capacity to form a specific intent. The majority holds that “a psychiatrist, properly qualified as an expert on the effects of intoxicants, may render an expert opinion as to whether a defendant’s voluntary intoxicated condition negatived the defendant’s capacity to form the requisite intent . . . .” (At 297.) I write separately because I see no more reliability or trustworthiness in expert testimony based on the defendant’s intoxication than that based on the defendant’s psychiatric profile. The majority states: “However, unlike other witnesses who are expert on the effect of intoxication on capacity to intend, psychiatrists may have a natural tendency, due to their training, to consider a defendant’s mental health history in formulating their opinions.” (At 297.) The majority burdens trial judges and cautions them to be careful not to allow psychiatrists to combine the mental history of the defendant with his intoxicated state. I believe this to be neither possible nor appropriate.
The majority implies that there may be experts other than psychiatrists on the effect of intoxication on a person’s capacity to form a specific intent. It does this by stating: “However, unlike other witnesses who are expert on the effect of intoxication on the capacity to intend, psychiatrists may have a natural tendency . . . to consider a defendant’s mental health history . . . .” (At 297.) (Emphasis added.) The majority does not *309even limit the opinion evidence as to intoxication influence on the capacity to form a specific intent to a person with some medical specialized training and knowledge regarding the function of the brain. For testimony on this sophisticated and esoteric opinion, there should at least be some specialized training required. Though “other experts” and these “students of alcohol” may be able to testify on the effect of alcohol on the body as to the nerves, muscles or motor functions, they are not trained or experienced on the effects of intoxicants on the ability to form a specific intent to do an act. Even if the majority were correct that there are experts as to the influence of intoxicants on brain dysfunctions, the only persons in society with any training or experience in that area of study are psychiatrists. I believe no other person could claim the ability to know the effects of intoxicants on the legal definition of a specific function of the brain, i.e., to have the capacity to form a specific intent to act.
We have recognized that: “ ‘[A] lay witness, who has the opportunity to observe the facts upon which he bases his opinion, may give his opinion whether a person at a particular time was or was not intoxicated.’ . . . The evaluation of the opinion of such a witness is for the trier of the facts.” Milwaukee v. Johnston, 21 Wis. 2d 411, 414-15, 124 N.W.2d 690 (1963).1 Though we have held that lay persons who observe the condition of a defendant at a particular time may give opinion evidence as to whether the defendant was intoxicated, that is not the same as giving an opinion that the defendant’s intoxicated condition prevented him from forming a spe*310cific intent to commit the crime charged. It may be accepted that experts can give opinions on the effect of alcohol on the motor or musculature system of an individual but that is not the same as giving an opinion on the influence of alcohol on an individual’s mental process, and in particular, not the same as an opinion as to the effect of alcohol on his specific intent to do a specific criminal act.
In Steele, in footnote 7, the court accepted the proposition that the effect of intoxicants upon a person’s state of mind is a part of common human experience which fact finders can understand and apply. While that may generally be true, the statement falls short of stating that the effect of intoxicants upon a state of mind to commit a particular criminal act is a part of common human experience. Even so, the jury is more capable of forming the opinion as to the effect of alcohol on the defendant’s brain at the particular moment when the criminal act was committed than anyone, including so-called alcoholic influence experts. The jury will have heard testimony about the defendant’s physical actions, words, reactions and claimed alcoholic intake. It will be able to consider all of those factors and decide whether the act was methodically or thoughtlessly accomplished. There is no need to superimpose on this evidence untested, unscientific, untrustworthy, expert opinion as to the influence of alcohol, an opinion impossible to test or compare to any objective standards of alcohol influence. Alcohol may have an influence on the defendant’s behavior at a particular moment but so does his emotional and psychiatric background. In Steele we held such influences do not form the trustworthy basis for an opinion regarding the defendant’s capacity to form intent.
Loveday v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 503, 247 N.W.2d 116 (1976), reaffirmed by the majority, was a decision rendered four years before Steele and, therefore, must be *311examined in terms of Steele. It is true that sec. 939.42, Stats., allows a complete defense to the guilt of having committed a crime if the person’s condition “[n]egatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime.” In other words, sec. 939.42 allows a complete defense if the specific intent to commit the crime is negated by the defendant’s intoxicated condition. The determination is to be made by the trier of fact. However, the statute does not serve as a foundation for the acceptability of opinion evidence of so-called “alcohol influence experts” to be presented to the trier of fact.
The majority states at 296 of the opinion the following: “Because of its susceptibility to objective demonstration and to lay understanding, expert opinion testimony which speaks exclusively to the effect of intoxication on specific intent is competent evidence.” This statement goes from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion. The weakness of that statement is highlighted by footnote 5 (at 296) which by citation contradicts the majority’s conclusion. The majority states: “Nonetheless, we find that expert opinion testimony from a properly qualified expert on the effects of intoxication, including that offered by a psychiatrist, is competent evidence and may well be persuasive in certain cases.” (Emphasis added.) In spite of all the admonitions in footnote 5, the majority ignores such expertise on the subject of intoxication.
I do not believe expert opinion evidence as to alcohol affecting the specific intent necessary for criminal guilt is any more trustworthy than psychiatric opinion evidence which was ruled out of order , in Steele in the intent phase of the trial. Steele stated: “What we bar from introduction at the guilt phase of the trial is expert opinion testimony tending to prove or disprove the defendant’s capacity to form the requisite criminal intent.” 97 Wis. 2d at 98. I would apply the same bar to expert *312opinion testimony tending to prove or disprove the defendant’s capacity to form the requisite criminal intent when the foundation of such opinion testimony is alcoholic consumption for the same reasons stated in Steele, which were: “[W]e have substantial doubt about the competency, relevance, and probativeness of the particular testimony for the purpose of showing diminished capacity to form intent.” Id. at 98-99.
It is strange indeed that in Steele we barred psychiatric opinion evidence as to mental capacity to form an intent and yet today we allow opinion evidence from a so-called expert on alcohol influence on specific intent. This court has historically placed alcohol and its intoxicating effect on the mind in the same category as all other causes affecting the mind. See Hempton v. State, 111 Wis. 127, 135, 86 N.W. 596 (1901). The Hempton court cited Terrill v. State, 74 Wis. 278, 42 Wis. 243 (1889), and stated the rule as: “[Djrunkenness, together with other causes affecting the mind, is proper for the consideration of the jury . . . .” (Emphasis added.) To be consistent with these cases, we should now rule that Steele denied opinion evidence as to the capacity to form a specific intent, not only based on the mental history of the defendant, but also based on his claimed intoxicated state at the time of the commission of the offense.
This defendant in the case testified to the jury that he was so intoxicated at the time of the killing that he lacked the capacity to form the specific intent to commit the crime of murder. He testified that on the day of the crime between 8:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., he drank twenty 12 ounce cans of beer. Then between 1:40 p.m. and 2:30 p.m., he went to see his son at the son’s day care center. Because the son was not outside, he decided to go to Margaret Wink’s home since the day care center was visible from her house. He was aware of that fact having been at her house previously. He stated his memories *313of the day were vague but he remembered drinking two or three more beers while at the Wink home. Then he recalls asking to use the bathroom and coming out of that room to find Wink bloody and lying on the floor having been strangled and stabbed to death. The defendant called other witnesses to testify concerning his intoxicated state. His housemate found only eight empty cans of beer, not 20, in the house and other persons who knew him testified the defendant did not seem “out of the ordinary” shortly after the time of the murder.
The defendant presented the defense of his intoxicated condition through testimony of persons who knew him and lived with him. The jury had all of the evidence it needed to consider the facts of the killing, the defendant’s deliberate decision to see his son and having failed, to then go to the victim’s home to observe his son’s day care center from there. The facts given by the defendant himself show he was acting deliberately and intentionally until the time of the brutal murder. Whether the alcohol had any influence on him at all, bears on his criminal responsibility which is a moral issue considered sét a second phase of the bifurcated trial. See Steele, 97 Wis. 2d at 96. Since there is no requirement that a bifurcated trial be held due to the nature of the plea in this case, if the defendant believes it is helpful and wishes to present such expert alcoholic influence opinion evidence, it can be done at the dispositional phase of the case as a mitigating circumstance.
If medical expert opinion evidence is received at trial concerning the influence of alcohol on the mental capacity to form a specific intent to commit a crime during trial, we will create the same testimonial problems we eliminated in Steele. The result of the majority opinion will be a contest of alcoholic influence experts in areas where the jury can arrive at its decision by balancing the testimony of the alcohol consumption against the *314defendant’s actions before, after and at the time of the crime as testified to by observers and the defendant himself if he testifies. Under the rule adopted by the majority opinion, we will be confronted by trial court records which will show a marked propensity of those who purport to have alcoholic influence expertise to tailor their testimony to the particular client whom they represent. (See Steele at 97 for the statement of dismay as applied to testimony of psychiatric expertise.) The jury is better equipped to make the decision of the influence of alcohol on the defendant’s mental capacity as applied to form a specific intent than it is to determine on the effect of a defendant’s psychiatric history on the capacity to form intent. The jury does not need the so-called help of expert hired guns to offer their opinions which are lacking in scientific soundness and especially where there is substantial legal doubt that those opinions have probative value on the point for which they will be asserted.
I accept the following statement of Steele at 97 and apply it to medical opinion evidence on the effects of intoxicants:
“We conclude that, under the present state of the law, the proffered evidence is neither competent, relevant, nor probative for the purpose asserted in the instant case. Thus, in addition to the fact that the admission of the psychiatric evidence in the guilt phase of the bifurcated trial would put in jeopardy safeguards designed for the protection of the defendant, as well as of society, and in addition to the problems of the duplicative evidence in the various stages of the bifurcated trial which result in cumulative evidence and jury confusion, we conclude that the evidence itself is suspect and is properly excluded. The exclusion is proper in either a single phase trial or the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial.”
Muench v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1124 (7th Cir. 1983), stated : “We therefore hold that a state is not constitutionally compelled to recognize the doctrine of diminished ca*315pacity and hence a state may exclude expert testimony offered for the purpose of establishing that a criminal defendant lacked the capacity to form a specific intent.” Id. at 1144-45. This is what this court did in Steele and is what we should do in this case. I would reverse Loveday directly since I believe it was reversed by implication by Steele.
I would also affirm in this case but for the reasons stated in this concurring opinion.
I am authorized to state that Justice William G. Callow and Justice Louis J. Ceci join this concurring opinion.

 See also State v. Burkman, 96 Wis. 2d 630, 646, 292 N.W.2d 641 (1980); State v. Bailey, 54 Wis. 2d 679, 685, 196 N.W.2d 664 (1972); Milwaukee v. Kelly, 40 Wis. 2d 136, 138, 161 N.W.2d 271 (1968); Milwaukee v. Biehel, 35 Wis. 2d 66, 69, 150 N.W.2d 419 (1967); Milwaukee v. Antczak, 24 Wis. 2d 480, 484, 129 N.W.2d 125 (1964).