23 Cal. App. 5th 959
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Andrew Berg was convicted under Penal Code § 4573.6 for knowingly possessing methamphetamine in the Monterey County Jail after deputies found a small plastic bindle between his buttocks during booking roughly 48 hours after arrest.
- At the time of arrest for public intoxication ~48 hours earlier, officers observed Berg drinking whiskey, smelling of alcohol, and slurring speech.
- The prosecution moved to exclude evidence of Berg’s voluntary intoxication at the time of arrest; the trial court granted the motion and excluded intoxication evidence as minimally relevant given the two-day interval.
- Berg offered a proposed instruction (citing People v. Low) about having an opportunity to relinquish the contraband; the court denied it as not an element of § 4573.6.
- The jury convicted; the court imposed the low term of two years (abstract mistakenly listed the middle term), with one year in county jail and the second year suspended under mandatory supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of voluntary intoxication evidence to negate knowledge for § 4573.6 (possession in jail) | Prosecution: intoxication at arrest was irrelevant after ~48 hours and properly excluded under Evidence Code §§ 350, 352 | Berg: his intoxication on entry was relevant to whether he knew he possessed the drugs in jail and could raise reasonable doubt about knowledge | Evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissible to negate mental-state elements of general intent crimes under Pen. Code § 29.4(a); exclusion was proper |
| Whether § 4573.6 is a general- or specific-intent offense | State: § 4573.6 is a general intent statute (describes act without further intent to achieve consequence) | Berg: knowledge is a mental-state element; intoxication evidence should be allowed to contest knowledge | Court: § 4573.6 is a general intent crime; "knowingly" only requires knowledge of facts bringing conduct within statute; thus § 29.4 bars voluntary-intoxication evidence |
| Whether People v. Reyes supports admitting intoxication to challenge scienter | Berg relied on Reyes to argue intoxication affects awareness/knowledge | State: Reyes relied on inapposite or abrogated authority | Court: Reyes is distinguishable or undermined by later authority and statutory text; cannot be relied upon to admit intoxication evidence here |
| Constitutional/due process challenge to § 29.4 exclusion | Berg argued denial of intoxication evidence prevented proof he lacked required mental state | State: Legislature may validly limit admissibility of voluntary-intoxication evidence | Court: Following U.S. Supreme Court (Montana v. Egelhoff) and California precedent, exclusion does not violate due process; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Low, 49 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2010) (discusses mens rea for jail-related drug statutes and expectations about concealing drugs before incarceration)
- People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444 (Cal. 1969) (development of specific vs. general intent distinction for intoxication admissibility)
- People v. Atkins, 25 Cal.4th 76 (Cal. 2001) (confirms Hood framework on intoxication evidence)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (Cal. 1998) (discusses intoxication evidence and statutory interpretation)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (plurality holding that excluding voluntary-intoxication evidence does not violate due process)
- People v. Whitfield, 7 Cal.4th 437 (Cal. 1994) (discussed re: intoxication admissibility; later abrogated by statute)
- People v. Reyes, 52 Cal.App.4th 975 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (Court of Appeal decision admitting intoxication evidence to challenge knowledge; distinguished/limited here)