19 Cal.App.5th 889
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jimmy Moore used PCP, acted violently in a convenience store and parking garage on July 2, 2016, and was arrested; police found methamphetamine in his backpack.
- Video recorded Moore causing property damage; he did not dispute being the actor but testified he was intoxicated and had memory gaps from PCP use.
- Expert testimony described PCP's dissociative/violent effects; the court limited that testimony to the resisting-officer charge.
- Jury convicted Moore of two counts of vandalism (Pen. Code § 594) and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Safety Code § 11377(a)); hung on resisting an officer.
- At trial Moore requested a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication as a defense to vandalism and resisting arrest; the court gave it only for resisting arrest and barred it for vandalism but allowed counsel to argue the intoxication facts to the jury.
- At sentencing the court granted probation with multiple conditions (including warrantless electronic searches and residence/employment approval); Moore did not object to those conditions and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary intoxication is a defense to vandalism (Pen. Code § 594) | People: Vandalism is a general intent crime; § 29.4 excludes voluntary intoxication for general intent crimes. | Moore: The statutory term “maliciously” requires a specific intent or mental state that intoxication could negate. | Court: Vandalism is a general intent crime; "maliciously" under § 7 does not create specific intent—voluntary intoxication is not a defense. |
| Whether probation conditions (warrantless electronic searches; residence/employment approval) are unconstitutionally overbroad | People: Conditions are within the court’s broad probation discretion and can be tailored to supervision/rehabilitation. | Moore: Conditions are overbroad and violate constitutional rights. | Court: Moore forfeited the claims by failing to object at sentencing; challenges are not purely facial and require record fact-finding, so they are not reached on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Atkins, 25 Cal.4th 76 (arson malice language does not create specific-intent element; voluntary intoxication not a defense)
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (standard of review for failure to give jury instruction)
- Sheena K. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 875 (exception to forfeiture for pure legal questions on appeal)
- People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (forfeiture of probation-condition challenges when not raised below)
- People v. Campbell, 23 Cal.App.4th 1488 (historical context for malicious injury statutes)
- People v. Reyes, 52 Cal.App.4th 975 (voluntary intoxication admissible to negate specific knowledge requirement in some general-intent crimes)