Gilmore

Defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the first degree and was sentenced to four years ’ imprisonment at San Quentin. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying motion for a new trial.

1. It is claimed by defendant that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, because (1) it was inadequate to convict; and (2) the evidence introduced showed the defendant incapable of committing the crime. The contention is that the evidence showed that defendant, by reason of his intoxicated condition, was incapable of forming a guilty intent, and that there was not a single circumstance corroborative of his confession. Section 22 of the Penal Code is as follows: “No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. But whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act.” The evidence tended to show…