MARK STEVEN LINK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mark Steven Link appealed his theft conviction, arguing he should have received a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, holding that while voluntary intoxication is a defense to theft (a specific intent crime), there was no evidence Link was intoxicated at the time of the theft, only at his arrest 36 hours later.
A defendant is not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction unless there is evidence that his intoxication prevented him from forming the requisite specific intent for the crime. Here, Link was not entitled to the instruction because there was no evidence he was intoxicated at the time of the theft, only at his arrest 36 hours later.
[1] Voluntary intoxication is a defense to theft under Section 812.014, Florida Statutes, which requires proof of specific criminal intent.
[2] To be entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense, there must be evidence that the intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the requisi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because theft under Section 812.-014, Florida Statutes (1981), is a crime requiring proof of specific criminal intent, State v. Lewis, 364 So.2d 1223 (Fla.1978); State v. Allen, 362 So.2d 10 (Fla.1978), voluntary intoxication is a defense thereto.”
Establishes the legal principle that voluntary intoxication is a valid defense to theft because theft requires specific criminal intent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLink was arrested in an intoxicated state with stolen property on his person. However, the evidence showed the theft could have occurred approximately…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Because theft under Section 812.-014, Florida Statutes (1981), is a crime requiring proof of specific criminal intent, State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla.1978); State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1978), voluntary intoxication is a defense thereto.1 See Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). See also Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). Here, however, although it is abundantly clear that the defendant was drug intoxicated when he was arrested and the stolen property found on his person, there is not the slightest evidence to show that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the theft, which, as the record reveals, could have occurred some thirty-six hours before the defendant was arrested in his intoxicated state. In order for a defendant to be entitled to an instruction to the jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense, there must be some evidence to show that the intoxication prevented him from forming the requisite specific intent.2 There is none here, and the instruction was correctly denied.
Affirmed.
. The defendant was also convicted of possession of methaqualudes, see § 893.13(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1981), an offense which does not require proof of specific intent and to which, therefore, voluntary intoxication is not a defense. See State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1973) (unless statute prohibiting act specifically requires criminal intent, intent is furnished by the doing of the act itself and need not otherwise be proved by the State); Broic v. State, 79 So. 2d 775 (Fla.1955) (State need not prove criminal intent of defendant found in intoxicated state in possession of narcotics).
. While most cases involve a showing that the defendant was intoxicated immediately preceding or at the time of the crime, see, e.g., Edwards v. Russell, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (FIa.2d DCA 1979), overruled on other grounds, Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1982); Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a showing that defendant was intoxicated imme diately following the crime may under certain circumstances be sufficient to allow the jury to infer that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Allen, 362 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Lewis, 364 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1978)
- Parker v. State, 408 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)
- Fouts v. State, 374 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Broic v. State, 79 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1955)