Heyward v. State, 1283S454

• Decision Date: 02 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 1283S454,1283S454
• Citation: 470 N.E.2d 63
• Parties: James H. HEYWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 63

470 N.E.2d 63

James H. HEYWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1283S454.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 2, 1984.

William F. Thoms, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lee Cloyd, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendant-Appellant James H. Heyward was convicted by a jury in the Marion Superior Court of class A felony robbery, class B felony confinement and class A misdemeanor carrying a firearm without a license. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to thirty-five years imprisonment for robbery, ten years for confinement and one year for the misdemeanor offense. Appellant now directly appeals and raises the following two issues:

1. instruction 6 regarding involuntary intoxication, and

2. sufficiency of evidence.

The facts adduced during trial show that at approximately 8:30 p.m. on July 29, 1982, a woman ran into the M and D Lounge in Indianapolis, shouted that a man was trying to kill her and hid in a back room. A man later identified by two witnesses as being Appellant immediately thereafter "busted" in the bar's front door, brandished an automatic pistol, asked where the woman was, ejected two shells from the gun and stated that he was going to kill her. No one responded to Appellant whereupon he ordered everyone to lie on the floor. After stating his intention to rob the cash register, Appellant ordered the bar's customers to stand up and go into a back room. One customer was struck across the back of his head and injured by Appellant. Appellant then ordered the "bar-maid" to empty the contents of the cash register into a brown shaving case whereupon Appellant left. Indianapolis police officer Charles Briley was on patrol in the vicinity of the bar at that time and received a police radio broadcast indicating the robber's description and vehicle. Shortly thereafter, Briley sighted Appellant in his car and stopped him. The brown case full of money and the automatic pistol were found in the car's front seat. Appellant did not possess a gun permit for the pistol.

I

At trial, Appellant presented a witness whose testimony suggested that Appellant was involuntarily intoxicated when the instant crime was committed. Specifically, Robert Evans Walker testified that during the late afternoon hours of July 29, 1982, he "dropped three LSD pills" into Appellant's can of beer hoping to intoxicate Appellant such that he could steal Appellant's money. Appellant tendered to the trial court a proposed instruction to inform the jury that involuntary intoxication operates as a "complete defense to any crime." The trial court combined Appellant's proposal with one of the State's tendered instructions, however, and gave the following final instruction 6:

"It is a defense that the defendant committed the crime charged while intoxicated, if the intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his body:

(1) without his consent; or

(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause intoxication.

This is called the defense of involuntary intoxication and it operates as a complete defense to any crime. Involuntary intoxication may result from involuntary introduction of alcohol or any other drug into the body.

Involuntary intoxication is a defense to a crime if the intoxication rises to the level that a defendant lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law."

Appellant is correct that the defense of involuntary intoxication may afford a complete defense which excuses the criminality of an act. Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-3-5(a) (Burns 1979). To operate as a complete defense, however, the intoxication must be shown to have been of...