People v. George CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I. Voluntary Intoxication Instruction

George asserts the trial court prejudicially erred when it failed to instruct the

jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense negating specific intent. The Attorney

General contends George forfeited this claim because an instruction on involuntary

intoxication is a pinpoint instruction that defense counsel must request. Even

assuming the claim was preserved and the court erred, it is not reasonably likely the

jury would have returned a more favorable verdict if the court had provided the

voluntary intoxication instruction. Although the record suggests George forfeited this

issue, we address it on its merits and conclude any error was harmless.

George was charged with making a criminal threat and assault. A defendant's

voluntary intoxication may not be considered in determining whether the defendant

committed assault, which is a general intent crime. (People v. Williams (2001)

Cal.4th 779, 790; People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 81.) Voluntary intoxication,

however, may be considered in determining whether a defendant had the specific

intent to commit the crime of criminal threats or the lesser offense of…