California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Herrera, D075202 (Cal. App. 2020):
Although a jury may consider evidence of voluntary intoxication on the issue of intent to kill, such evidence is inadmissible to support an imperfect self-defense. (People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 968, 970 [concluding a jury may consider "evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of whether defendant intended to kill but not on the question of whether he believed he needed to act in self-defense"]; see People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 137-139 [concluding "[u]nreasonable self-defense was never intended to encompass reactions to threats that exist only in the defendant's mind"].) For
Page 38
this separate reason, we independently conclude the court properly refused to give CALCRIM No. 604.12
D. Credibility
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.