State v. WarrenState v. Warren
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Kenison
The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court properly instructed the jury as to the intoxication and insanity defenses. The defendant was indicted for burglary (
We have reviewed the trial court’s instructions to the jury and hold that its explanation of the defenses was sufficient. Its detailed charge on insanity fully complied with the controlling legal principles set forth in
State v. Pike,
49 N.H. 399, 429-44 (1870), and
State v. Jones,
50 N.H. 369 (1871);
see
Its charge on intoxication explained that the crimes of
*197
burglary and arson required as an element of proof a finding that the defendant specifically intended to commit certain unlawful acts, and stated that the effect of alcohol was a factor to be considered with all others in resolving issues raised in the case. While this instruction was not as clear as that suggested by the defendant, its description of the defense properly informed the jurors that intoxication could prevent the formation of the requisite intent.
State v. Moody,
113 N.H. 191, 193, 304 A.2d 374, 375 (1973);
see State v. Avery,
44 N.H. 392, 398 (1862);
State v. Brough,
112 N.H. 182, 185, 291 A.2d 618, 620-21 (1972); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 32 (13th ed. C. Torcía 1972); Annot., 8 A.L.R.3d 1236, § 4 (1966).
See also
Defendant’s exceptions overruled.
All concurred.