DAVID JAMES SMITH, 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.
Trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of intoxication where evidence showed the defendant was significantly impaired by drugs and alcohol at the time of the burglary.
A trial court must give a requested jury instruction on the defense of intoxication when evidence establishes the defendant was significantly impaired by drugs and alcohol at the time of the offense.
[1] A trial court must instruct the jury on the defense of intoxication when evidence establishes the defendant consumed substantial quantities of drugs and alcohol and was s…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the defendant was 'significantly impaired,' although not insane, at the time of the offense due to the defendant's drug and alcohol abuse on the day in question”
Court-appointed psychiatrist's testimony regarding defendant's mental state at time of offense
David James Smith was charged with burglary of a structure. Smith testified about his long-term drug use and extensive consumption of drugs and alcoho…
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 Burglary Of A Structure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant David James Smith from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary of a structure. He raises two points on appeal, the first of which presents reversible error.
The trial court, in our view, committed reversible error in refusing to give a defense requested instruction on the defense of intoxication because there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to support the giving of such instruction. The defendant testified to his long-term drug use and to the extensive quantities of drugs and alcohol he consumed prior to allegedly losing all memory of what he was doing some nine hours prior to his arrest; a court-appointed psychiatrist gave further testimony that the defendant was “significantly impaired,” although not insane, at the time of the offense due to the defendant’s drug and alcohol abuse on the day in question. This being so, an instruction on the defense of intoxication was clearly called for, and it was reversible error to refuse same. See Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91, 92-93 (Fla. 1985); Randolph v. State, 526 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327, 328-29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.1985); Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357, 358-59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Given the above disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the second point on appeal.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gardner v. State, 480 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1985)
- Edwards v. State, 428 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pope v. State, 458 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Randolph v. State, 526 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)