Summary
The opinion addresses the effect of voluntary intoxication and chronic alcoholism on criminal intent, insanity, and the degree of homicide. It also discusses preservation of instructional errors, the absence of a self-defense instruction, constitutional issues, and the trial court’s authority to regulate peremptory challenges.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a court may decide a constitutional challenge to a statute when the constitutional issue is not presented by the record or is unnecessary to disposition.
- Whether voluntary intoxication or acute alcoholism may excuse or justify homicide, or may be considered on intent, premeditation, and degree of homicide.
- Whether temporary drunkenness constitutes insanity or an unsound mind.
- Whether omission of a jury instruction on an evidentiary issue is reversible error when the defendant did not specifically request the instruction.
- Whether omission of a self-defense instruction warrants reversal when the evidence did not support self-defense and no request was made.
- Whether the trial court may determine the manner of exercising peremptory challenges when no statute fixes the procedure.
Holdings
- A court will not decide a constitutional question or declare a statute invalid unless the issue is presented by the record and its resolution is necessary to determine the case.
- Acute alcoholism or temporary mental incapacity caused by voluntary intoxication generally is not an excuse or justification for homicide, but evidence of intoxication is competent for the jury to consider in determining intent, premeditation, the degree of homicide, or whether any crime was committed.
- Drunkenness is not insanity or an unsound mind unless the resulting derangement becomes fixed and continued through habitual drunkenness or chronic alcoholism and renders the person incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.
- In a criminal case, a defendant seeking reversal based on the omission of an instruction on a legal theory claimed to apply to the evidence should call the omission to the court's attention and make a specific request for the instruction.
- When the evidence at a murder trial does not show facts existing at the time of the homicide that justify a self-defense instruction, and no request for such an instruction was made, the omission does not warrant reversal.
- In a first-degree murder trial, the trial court may determine the manner in which the right of peremptory challenge is exercised when no statute establishes the governing procedure.
Key quotations
“Acute alcoholism or mental incapacity produced by voluntary intoxication existing temporarily at the time of the homicide is generally no excuse or justification for the crime.” (370)
“Proof of such intoxication, however, is competent and proper for the jury to consider as bearing upon the question of intent and premeditation” (370)
“the trial court may determine the manner of the exercise of the right of peremptory challenge in the absence of a rule fixed by statute governing the same.” (371)
Factual background
Rucker was tried for murder, apparently with evidence concerning acute alcoholism or temporary mental incapacity caused by voluntary intoxication. The opinion also considered whether the trial evidence supported a self-defense instruction and whether the trial court properly managed peremptory challenges. The record apparently did not contain facts at the time of the homicide sufficient to require a self-defense charge, and no request for such an instruction was made.
Procedural history
The opinion addresses issues arising from Rucker's trial for murder in the first degree. The excerpt states the governing rules but does not identify the lower court's judgment or expressly state the appellate disposition.