delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant, Frank White, was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree assault. 1 Defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdicts and that the jury was not properly instructed as to the law. We find no error in the proceedings below and therefore affirm the judgments of conviction.
*355 Floyd Ortiz and the defendant were co-workers and the events constituting the crimes charged occurred at their place of employment. Floyd Ortiz testified that the defendant punched him in the face and later struck him across the face with a hard object.
After receiving the .first blow from the defendant, Floyd called his brother, Obed Ortiz, and asked Obed to come to the plant to take him home. When Obed arrived at the plant, he saw the defendant trying to break into a bathroom where Floyd had sequestered himself. Obed attempted to pass by the defendant and the defendant answered with a blow to Obed’s head.
The police officers who were summoned found a broken broom handle and a ratchet wrench which belonged to the defendant on the floor of the room where these altercations took place. The head of the wrench matched indentations found in the bathroom wall.
The prosecution medical witness testified that the skull fractures received by the Ortiz brothers could not have been produced by a fist but were probably caused by a blow from a round, blunt object. The doctor also testified that blows of the type suffered by the Ortiz brothers would carry with them a substantial risk of death.
I.
Defendant asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the convictions. While many of the facts recited above were contradicted by the defendant’s testimony, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution amply supports the convictions. The jury was entitled to believe the testimony of the Ortiz brothers and to disbelieve the defendant’s asserted defense of self-defense.
Specific intent to cause bodily injury may be found from the “defendant’s actions and the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the circumstances of the case.”
Baker
v. People,
While intoxication may be relevant to a determination of whether the defendant did form or had the capacity to form the requisite specific intent, the issue of intoxication is one for the jury.
Martinez
v. People,
II.
The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree assault and the *356 lesser-included offense of third-degree assault 2 relating to intentional, knowing, and reckless conduct. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on the commission of third-degree assault by criminal negligence. The defendant assigns this refusal of the trial court as reversible error.
A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case whenever the theory is supported by some evidence.
People v. Rivera,
We agree with the trial court that there was no evidence giving support to a theory that the defendant acted with criminal negligence in striking the Ortiz brothers. To the contrary, all the evidence demonstrates that the defendant intentionally struck the Ortiz brothers. Defendant asserts, however, that evidence of intoxication presented at the trial required an instruction on criminal negligence.
Even if the defendant had been intoxicated at the time of the assaults, under the evidence in this record, he would, as a matter of law, have acted recklessly with respect to the assaults. Section 18-1-501(8), C.R.S. 1973 provides that “a person who creates a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of self-induced intoxication . . . acts recklessly with respect thereto.” The trial court therefore properly refused to instruct the jury on criminally negligent assault.
The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE LEE and MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON do not participate.