What is the effect of voluntary intoxication on implied malice supporting the charge of second degree murder against appellant?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lam, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 877, 184 Cal.App.4th 580 (Cal. App. 2010):
The trial court instructed the jury with form instruction CALCRIM No. 625 on the effect of appellant's voluntary intoxication on his ability to harbor express malice in forming the intent needed to commit first degree murder. The court did not, however, offer a similar limiting instruction for implied malice supporting the charge of second degree murder against appellant. Appellant acknowledges various Courts of Appeal have held a voluntary intoxication instruction does not apply to negate implied malice. (See People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1298, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 677; People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1115-1117, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 433.) We find those decisions well-reasoned and decline appellant's invitation to reject them.
[184 Cal.App.4th 586]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
