Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

677 P.2d 786

36 Wn. App. 792

Docket No. 11146-9-I.

State v. Washington

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DEAN WASHINGTON, Appellant.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.

Decided March 5, 1984.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A defendant is entitled to have his or her theory of the case submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions when the theory is supported by substantial evidence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Locati

Relies on 95 Wash. 2d 616 - State v. Jones · 91 Wash. 2d 572 - State v. Griffith · 30 Wash. App. 432 - State v. Simmons

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2014

11 state decisions

401984199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mark W. Muenster and Raymond H. Thoenig of Washington Appellate Defender Association, for appellant.

¶2Seth Dawson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Larry McKeeman and Asa Glazer, Deputies, for respondent.

¶3SWANSON, J.

¶4In State v. Washington,34 Wn. App. 410, 661 P.2d 605 (1983), this court affirmed the third degree assault conviction of William Dean Washington, concluding that the trial court did not err by failing to provide a voluntary intoxication instruction. On October 7, 1983, our Supreme Court remanded this case to our court for reconsideration in light of State v. Jones,95 Wn.2d 616, 628 P.2d 472 (1981). Upon consideration, in light of the remand, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a voluntary intoxication instruction and, therefore, we reverse.

¶5We set out the facts in our original opinion and need not repeat them here. The only issue before us is whether a voluntary intoxication instruction was required.

¶6*793 [1] We restate the requirements for obtaining a voluntary intoxication instruction.

"A defendant is entitled to have his theory of the case submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions when the theory is supported by substantial evidence in the record." State v. Griffith,91 Wn.2d 572, 574, 589 P.2d 799 (1979). There are three prerequisites for giving a voluntary intoxication instruction: (1) the crime charged must include a particular mental state as an element; (2) defendant must present substantial evidence of drinking; and (3) defendant must present evidence that the drinking affected his ability to form the requisite intent. E.g., State v. Simmons,30 Wn. App. 432, 435, 635 P.2d 745 (1981).

¶7(Footnote omitted.) State v. Washington,34 Wn. App. at 414-15. The court in State v. Jones, supra, concluded that evidence that a defendant was intoxicated was enough to support an intoxication instruction.

¶8In light of Jones, we hold the trial court here erred by not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction. There was substantial evidence presented at trial that Washington was intoxicated at the time he allegedly committed the assault. The trial court, therefore, erred by failing to submit the issue to the jury.

¶9Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

¶10CALLOW and ANDERSEN, JJ., concur.

¶11Review denied by Supreme Court May 11, 1984.

/677/p2d/786 · .json · Public domain