Alfrey v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 18
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Alfrey was convicted on Cause Nos. 19 (residential entry, theft, trespass) and 85 (escape, residential entry); probation violation in Cause No. 49; convictions stem from February 2010 acts in Crawfordsville including entry into homes and thefts.
- At trial, jury instructions on intoxication followed Indiana law, stating voluntary intoxication is not a defense except under narrow statutory exceptions.
- Alfrey testified he voluntarily took medications with known intoxicating effects and that the effects could impair judgment.
- Convictions were entered after a consolidated trial for Causes 19 and 85; probation revocation was based on those offenses.
- Appellate review addressed whether the intoxication instructions were fundamental error, sufficiency of the evidence, and probation revocation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the intoxication instruction fundamental error? | Alfrey argues the instruction is incomplete for prescription drugs. | Alfrey claims the instruction fails to cover medical intoxication nuances. | No error; instructions consistent with law. |
| Is the evidence sufficient given voluntary intoxication? | Intoxication negates mens rea. | Evidence shows voluntary intake and awareness of impairment. | Sufficient evidence supports convictions. |
| Was probation revocation properly affirmed? | Convictions lacked proper basis for revocation. | Revocation supported by underlying offenses. | Probation revocation affirmed. |
| Did due process require a different intoxication approach? | Due process requires broader intoxication defense. | Lawful to restrict intoxication defense. | No due process violation; existing framework upheld. |
| Do the convictions and probation revocation withstand aggregation critique? | Concerns about merging sentences and judgments. | No reversible aggregation error. | judgments affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davidson v. State, 849 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.2006) (instruction analysis and fundamental error standard; intoxication not a defense except narrow exceptions)
- Overstreet v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind.2003) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; abuse of discretion)
- Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind.2001) (voluntary intoxication and mens rea; due process considerations)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) (federal view on voluntary intoxication as a non-defense)