Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State
2011 OK CR 4
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Cuesta-Rodriguez was convicted of murder in Oklahoma; he seeks rehearing on the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
- The court originally found no due process error, implicitly affirming the trial court's discretion in declining the instruction.
- Evidence showed Cuesta-Rodriguez consumed some liquor before the murder, but he gave a coherent, detailed narration of events surrounding the homicide.
- Cuesta-Rodriguez argued the instruction was required under Charm v. State and Malone v. State, with Malone controlling the standard for entitlement to a voluntary intoxication instruction.
- The panel reaffirmed applying the Malone prima facie test, concluding the evidence did not establish a face of intoxication sufficient to negate the specific intent to kill.
- The court also denied rehearing on other issues, including constitutional sentencing-stage intoxication mitigation and discovery notice regarding Detective Carson’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary intoxication instruction warranted? | Cuesta-Rodriguez relied on Charm/Malone for entitlement | State argues Malone governs; no entitlement shown | Not entitled to instruction; no due process violation |
| Authority governing intoxication standard? | Charm test controls entitlement | Malone prima facie test governs | Malone controls; Charm cited only for rationale |
| Waiver of sentencing-stage intoxication claim? | Constitutional rights to mitigate at sentencing were implicated | Claim not independently argued or supported | Waived; not addressed in rehearing |
| Notice of detective testimony (blood spatter) adequate? | State failed to provide explicit notice as crime-scene expert | Record shows notice; testimony not expert opinion | No reversible error; notice sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1996) (test for voluntary intoxication instruction)
- Malone v. State, 168 P.3d 185 (Okla. 2007) (prima facie test for entitlement to intoxication instruction)
- Jackson v. State, 964 P.2d 875 (Okla. 1998) (detailed defendant account may negate entitlement)
- Frederick v. State, 37 P.3d 908 (Okla. 2001) (summarizes required evidence for voluntary intoxication defense)
- Simpson v. State, 230 P.3d 888 (Okla. 2010) (defining intoxication standards for defense)
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 241 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2010) (prior regime on voluntary intoxication and due process)