California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

3427. Involuntary Intoxication

Download PDF
3427.Involuntary Intoxication
Consider any evidence that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated
in deciding whether the defendant had the required (intent/ [or] mental
state) when (he/she) acted.
A person is involuntarily intoxicated if he or she unknowingly ingested
some intoxicating liquor, drug, or other substance, or if his or her
intoxication is caused by the (force/[, [or] duress/, [or] fraud/, [or]
trickery of someone else), for whatever purpose[, without any fault on
the part of the intoxicated person].
New January 2006; Revised August 2013
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
It appears that the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on involuntary
intoxication, unless the intoxication results in unconsciousness. (See People v.
Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588] [no sua
sponte duty when evidence of voluntary intoxication presented to negate element of
offense].) If the defendant is relying on the defense of unconsciousness caused by
involuntary intoxication, see CALCRIM No. 3425, Unconsciousness.
In the definition of “involuntarily intoxicated,” the phrase “without any fault on the
part of the intoxicated person” is taken from People v. Velez (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d
785, 796 [221 Cal.Rptr. 631]. It is unclear when this concept of “fault” would
apply if the person has no knowledge of the presence of the intoxicating substance.
The committee has included the language in brackets for the court to use at its
discretion.
If the defendant claims unconsciousness due to involuntary intoxication as a
defense to driving under the influence, see People v. Mathson (2012) 210
Cal.App.4th 1297, 1317–1323 [149 Cal.Rptr.3d 167].
Related Instructions
See CALCRIM No. 3426, Voluntary Intoxication.
AUTHORITY
• Instructional Requirements. See Pen. Code, § 26(3).
Burden of Proof. See People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1106 [2
Cal.Rptr.2d 364, 820 P.2d 588] [in context of voluntary intoxication].
• Involuntary Intoxication Defined. People v. Velez (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 785,
796 [221 Cal.Rptr. 631].
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Defenses, §§ 32–39.
944
0040
3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73,
Defenses and Justifications, §§ 73.01[4], 73.04 (Matthew Bender).
COMMENTARY
One court has held that a mistake of fact defense (see Pen. Code, § 26(3)) can be
based on involuntary intoxication. (People v. Scott (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 823,
831–832 [194 Cal.Rptr. 633].) For further discussion, see CALCRIM No. 3406,
Mistake of Fact.
RELATED ISSUES
Unconsciousness Based on Voluntary Intoxication Is Not a Complete Defense
Unconsciousness is typically a complete defense to a crime except when it is
caused by voluntary intoxication. (People v. Heffıngton (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 1, 8
[107 Cal.Rptr. 859].) Unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication is governed
by former Penal Code section 22 [now Penal Code section 29.4], rather than by
section 26, and is only a partial defense to a crime. (People v. Walker (1993) 14
Cal.App.4th 1615, 1621 [18 Cal.Rptr.2d 431] [no error in refusing to instruct on
unconsciousness when defendant was voluntarily under the influence of drugs at the
time of the crime].)
DEFENSES AND INSANITY CALCRIM No. 3427
945
0041