56 Mich. App. 607 | Mich. Ct. App. | 1974
Benn Phillips, also known as Walker Phillips, was found guilty by a jury of
On appeal the defendant claims the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on intoxication as a defense to a specific intent crime. The challenged portion of the instruction is set out below.
"You would not, however, be justified in acquitting the defendant even though you find that he was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the offense, unless you find that he was intoxicated to such an extent from over-indulgence in intoxicating liquor that he was not conscious of what he was doing or why he was doing it.”
The Supreme Court in People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367; 212 NW2d 196 (1973), held that this identical instruction was erroneous. The vice of this instruction as determined by the Supreme Court is that it precludes a finding that the defendant did not harbor the necessary felonious intent for reasons other than being unconscious of what he was doing. Crittle is definitely applicable and the defendant’s conviction is set aside and the case remanded for a new trial.
Since a retrial is mandated in this case, and since it is possible that several asserted errors might again arise, we address ourselves to them. On remand the trial court is instructed to hold a Walker
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965).
