California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 353, 243 Cal.App.4th 1247 (Cal. App. 2016):
"If the court gives any instruction at all on the relevance of intoxication (see People v. Castillo [ (1997) ] 16 Cal.4th [1009,] 1014 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648, 945 P.2d 1197] [no sua sponte duty to instruct on intoxication] ), it might simply instruct that the jury may consider intoxication in determining whether a defendant tried as an aider and abettor had the required mental state. It might also instruct that the intoxication evidence is irrelevant on the question whether a charged crime was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime. The court would not additionally be required to parse out those elements of each crime charged for which the evidence could be considered or distinguish between the knowledge and the intent requirements." (Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1134, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735.)
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.