Section 3426 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

404. Intoxication
If you conclude that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the
alleged crime, you may consider this evidence in deciding whether the
defendant:
A. Knew that
<insert name of perpetrator> intended to
commit
<insert target offense>;
AND
B. Intended to aid and abet
<insert name of
perpetrator> in committing
<insert target offense>.
Someone is intoxicated if he or she (took[,]/ [or] used[,]/[or] was given)
any drug, drink, or other substance that caused an intoxicating effect.
[Do not consider evidence of intoxication in deciding whether
<insert charged nontarget offense> is a natural and probable
consequence of
<insert target offense>.]
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on voluntary intoxication; however, the
trial court must give this instruction on request. (See People v. Ricardi (1992) 9
Cal.App.4th 1427, 1432 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 364]; People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th
1009, 1014 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648, 945 P.2d 1197]; People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d
1103, 1119 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588] [in context not involving aiding and
abetting].) Although voluntary intoxication is not an affirmative defense to a crime,
the jury may consider evidence of voluntary or involuntary intoxication and its
effect on a defendant’s ability to form specific mental states. (Pen. Code, §§ 22, 26;
People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1131–1134 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959
P.2d 735]; People v. Scott (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 823, 832 [194 Cal.Rptr. 633].)
Give the last bracketed paragraph on request if the defendant was charged with both
target and nontarget crimes. (People v. Mendoza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1134 [77
Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735].)
Related Instructions
See CALCRIM No. 3426, Voluntary Intoxication, and CALCRIM No. 3427,
Involuntary Intoxication.
AUTHORITY
•
Instructional Requirements. Pen. Code, § 29.4; People v. Mendoza (1998) 18
Cal.4th 1114, 1131–1134 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735]; see People v.
175

to inflict extreme and prolonged pain.” Or, if the defendant is charged with felony-
murder, insert intent to commit the felony where indicated. Similarly, if the
defendant is also charged with a nonhomicide crime with a specific intent
requirement, include that intent requirement. For example, if the defendant is
charged with murder and robbery, include “whether the defendant intended to
permanently deprive the owner of the property.”
Evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissible on the question of whether a
defendant believed it necessary to act in self-defense. (People v. Soto (2018) 4
Cal.5th 968, 970 [231 Cal.Rptr.3d 732, 415 P.3d 789].)
AUTHORITY
•
Voluntary Intoxication Defined. Pen. Code, § 29.4(c).
•
Unconsciousness Not Required. People v. Ray (1975) 14 Cal.3d 20, 28–29 [120
Cal.Rptr. 377, 533 P.2d 1017], disapproved on other grounds in People v.
Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 89 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451, 999 P.2d 675].
•
No Sua Sponte Duty to Instruct. People v.