Hutcherson v. State

In Hutcherson v. State, 677 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994), the appellant had argued that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on manslaughter where the trial court had given the jury an instruction on intoxication. The appellant in Hutcherson also cited Fletcher v. State, [621 So. 2d 1010 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)], in support of his argument. However, in Hutcherson, the Court held that it was not plain error for the trial court to fail to give a manslaughter charge when it had given a charge on intoxication. One of the reasons given for this determination was based on the evidence at trial--there had been no indication that the appellant was so intoxicated that he could not form the necessary intent, despite his statement that he had ingested drugs and alcohol before the murder. The Court stated: "'The evidence of the appellant's intoxication was the appellant's statement that he had taken five Valiums and had drunk alcohol before the murder. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that shows when prior to the murder these intoxicants were ingested. Also, the appellant's mother, who picked the appellant up on Moffatt Road after the murder, when asked if the appellant appeared intoxicated, stated that he looked "real tired." The jury's finding that the appellant was not so intoxicated that he could not form the specific intent is supported by the evidence. "'"In the present case, the record contains no evidence either that defendant consumed an inordinate quantity of drugs or alcohol, or that his behavior actually demonstrated diminished capacity. Accordingly, the court committed no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses based on defendant's failure to form a specific intent to commit the underlying felony." "' People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal. 3d 648, 276 Cal. Rptr. 788, 813, 802 P.2d 278, 303 [(1990)], cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837, 112 S. Ct. 121, 116 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1991).' " Hutcherson, supra, [677 So. 2d] at 1198."