explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is not warranted when the evidence does not indicate that the defendant’s intoxication affected his or her ability to form the necessary intent
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a voluntary intoxication instruction is not warranted when the evidence does not indicate that the defendant’s intoxication affected his or her ability to form the necessary intent
- noting that under California law “[a] prior conviction carries a strong presumption of constitutional regularity” (cleaned up)
- Faretta motion made on the date scheduled for trial was untimely
- “A defendant’s expression of dissatisfaction with appointed counsel, necessitating a Marsden hearing, does not compel counsel to concede the allegedly inadequate representation but rather requires counsel to respond truthfully to those allegations.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I would dismiss the appeal as moot. That is because I would have vacated the underlying judgment on habeas corpus. (See In re Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82, 101-104 [ 284 Cal.Rptr. 305 , 813 P.2d 1335 ] (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).) It was not a superior court judge who presided over the trial of this cause and sentenced defendant to death. It was merely a commissioner, who was without authority to do so. I still “find it shocking that one who is not a judge chosen by and responsible to society can merely by inference and implication be given the awesome power of determining life or death for a human being.” (In re Horton, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 101 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.).)
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 24, 1996, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.