What is the state of the law on intoxication in criminal cases?

Given this state of the evidence, the governing authorities support the Attorney General's contention that the trial court had no duty to instruct on intoxication. In People v. Bandhauer (1967) 66 Cal.2d 524, 58 Cal.Rptr. 332, 426 P.2d 900, for example, the court concluded that although the evidence demonstrated that the defendant had had six or seven beers in several bars in the hours immediately preceding the crime, because there was "no evidence that his drinking had any substantial effect on him, or that he was so intoxicated that he did not or could not harbor malice" (id. at p. 528, 58 Cal.Rptr. 332, 426 P.2d 900), the trial court had not erred in refusing to give an intoxication instruction. Similarly, in People v. Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668, 685-686, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84, 603 P.2d 1, the court held that while there was evidence that the defendant had consumed at least six cans of beer and several shots of whiskey on the day of the crime and the defendant had testified somewhat equivocally as to his own intoxication, because all of the

Page 301