State of Iowa v. Mario Guerrero Cordero
861 N.W.2d 253
| Iowa | 2015Background
- On July 4, 2008, Mario Guerrero Cordero shot and killed Miguel Cano Basurto at an auto shop and wounded Hector Casillas; a handgun later recovered was ballistically matched to bullets from the scene.
- Witnesses testified Guerrero Cordero drank beer that day; most said he did not appear intoxicated and only one (an intoxicated stranger) said he was "probably" intoxicated.
- Guerrero Cordero was charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder; he moved for acquittal at close of evidence (denied) and, after trial, requested a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication (denied).
- The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and attempted murder; the district court sentenced him to life without parole (murder) and 25 years (attempt) to run consecutively.
- The court of appeals affirmed on most issues but held the trial court erred in refusing the intoxication instruction (harmless); the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review limited to the intoxication-instruction issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication | Instruction not required because State proved specific intent and witnesses indicated defendant was not intoxicated | Intoxication evidence (beer consumption, at least one witness saying "probably" intoxicated) raised a fact question requiring instruction | No error: evidence did not rise to "substantial" level showing intoxication so extreme as to negate specific intent; only mere intoxication shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- State v. Broughton, 425 N.W.2d 48 (Iowa 1988) (defendant must produce substantial evidence to support intoxication instruction)
- State v. Watts, 244 N.W.2d 586 (Iowa 1976) (reversible error to refuse intoxication instruction where heavy drinking and memory lapses supported a fact question)
- State v. Bell, 29 Iowa 316 (Iowa 1870) (historical recognition that intoxication may negate specific intent if it prevents formation of intent)
- State v. Templeton, 258 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 1977) (burden remains on State to prove specific intent; defendant must raise a fact question on intoxication)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996) (historical overview of intoxication law and its treatment in American law)