State v. Bishop, 63188
Decision Date | 11 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 63188,No. 1,63188,1 |
Citation | 632 S.W.2d 255 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James R. BISHOP, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Paul Crider, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.
Kelly Klopfenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant was charged by amended information with burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, kidnapping, and attempted robbery. He gave notice of his intent to rely on the defense, authorized by § 562.076, RSMo, that he was in a drugged condition which was involuntarily produced and which deprived him of the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform it to the requirements of the law. On that basis defendant asserted that he was not criminally responsible for his conduct.
Defendant waived his right to trial by a jury and the cause was heard by the court. It found defendant guilty of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and kidnapping but not guilty of attempted robbery. In so holding it found that the evidence did not establish that defendant's use of drugs prior to committing the offense was involuntary as required by the statute to constitute a defense. The court further found from the evidence that defendant formed an intent to commit the offenses in question. Therefore, concluded the court, § 562.076 did not provide a defense for defendant herein.
The court assessed punishment at fifteen years on the conviction of burglary in the first degree, fifteen years on the conviction of robbery in the first degree, and life imprisonment on the conviction of kidnapping. The three sentences were made concurrent. We affirm.
The single issue raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that § 562.076 was inapplicable to the facts of this case and did not excuse defendant. Accordingly, we recite the evidence only to the extent necessary to an understanding of that issue.
The evidence would support a finding that during the early hours of July 25, 1980, the defendant entered the Skaggs Drug Center at 75th and Wornall in Kansas City by means of a hole which he made in the roof of the store. He carried with him a briefcase which contained burglary tools, a gun and a police scanner. Subsequently, Edwin Ladd and Kerry Berten, employees of Skaggs, arrived to open the store. Upon entry, they discovered defendant in the store. Defendant held the employees hostage for some time, during much of which period he held his gun pointed against the back of Ladd's head. He forced Ladd to open the store safe and hand over the money and drugs which were in the safe.
Kerry Berten managed to escape from the store after about an hour. Police were alerted and during the morning three of them entered the store. Defendant ordered the officers to leave, stating that if they did not he would kill Ladd. Later, as defendant was exploring possible avenues of escape, Ladd succeeded in escaping from the store. Defendant thereafter returned to the roof and, on orders of the police, descended from the roof and was captured.
At the trial, defendant testified that prior to going to and entering the Skaggs store he obtained and took certain drugs by injection. He said that he was addicted to those drugs and had been for about a year and a half. He stated that he took the drugs because he needed them to maintain what he had-an ability to deal with something within him. His girl friend and Dr. Neese, D.O., his family doctor, also testified that he was addicted to certain drugs. Dr. Neese stated that when defendant took these drugs, it was an act of compulsion because he was addicted and that with the dosage and addiction, he could "not very well" conform his behavior to the requirements of the law.
The state offered the testimony of Dr. Zwerenz, a psychiatrist, who testified that defendant understood the nature of his actions and was cognizable of the law and its consequences at the time of his offenses at the Skaggs store.
The statute on which defendant bases his defense reads as follows:
"562.076. Intoxicated or Drugged Condition
(1) Negatives the existence of the mental states of purpose or knowledge when such mental states are elements of the offense charged or of an included offense; or
(2) Is involuntarily produced and deprived him of the capacity to know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
Defendant relies on subparagraph 1(2) of that statute. It is defendant's theory that when one becomes addicted to a drug, the taking of such drug is a matter of necessity and it is taken under compulsion rather than voluntarily. Therefore, says defendant, the drugged condition of the addict is involuntarily produced within the meaning of § 562.076.1(2) and the addict is not criminally responsible for conduct under such circumstances when, as he contends here, such condition deprived him of the ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Is the drugged condition of a defendant "involuntarily produced" within the meaning of the statute merely because the defendant taking the drugs is a drug addict? This necessarily involves a determination of the meaning of the statutory language which states that a person is criminally responsible for conduct "unless such condition * * * (2) Is involuntarily produced * * *."
Section 562.076 is part of a new criminal code which was enacted in 1977. 1 Like other sections of that code, it is followed in V.A.M.S. with editorially selected comments which were prepared by the drafting committee, known as the Committee to Draft a Modern Criminal Code. The comment which follows § 562.076 recites that it is based on Model Penal Code § 2.08 and on provisions of the laws of New York, Michigan, Illinois and Kansas. It then states:
The foregoing comment does not define or discuss what is meant by "involuntary" intoxication. However, its reference to § 2.08 of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, the statutes of other states, and certain textbooks provides some guidance in interpreting the language used in subsection 1(2).
Section 2.08 of the Model Penal Code provides that intoxication (from alcohol or other substances) is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense charged or the intoxication is not self-induced or it is pathological. We are concerned with the part of § 2.08 which provides an exception if the intoxication is not self-induced. Comments on § 2.08 are contained in Tentative Draft No. 9 (1959) of the Model Penal Code., commencing on page 2. Pertinent to the issue of whether use of drugs by an addict is voluntary or involuntary is the following sentence at page 12:
"... Narcotic addicts may resort to crime to obtain certain funds for drugs to prevent withdrawal symptoms and when they do they are, of course, held accountable ..."
The foregoing comment indicates that the drafters of § 2.08 did not contemplate that drug addicts would be excused on the theory that their use of drugs was not self-induced.
This conclusion as to the intended meaning and effect of § 2.08 is confirmed in LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (1972), cited in the comment to § 562.076. At p. 350, in a section which discusses "voluntary" and "involuntary" intoxication, appears this discussion of narcotics addiction:
In a footnote (No. 69) to the quoted paragraph, the authors note that the comment to Model Penal Code § 2.08, set out in Tentative Draft No. 9, makes it clear that the code did not result in a change in the law where drug addicts are involved.
As previously noted, the comment in V.A.M.S. which follows § 562.076 also indicates that in drafting that section the committee looked to statutes of New York, Michigan, Illinois and Kansas. We have examined the laws of each of those states which deal with the question of whether and to what extent intoxication is a defense to a criminal charge. We find nothing in that examination which causes us to conclude that those statutory provisions are intended to provide that the taking of drugs by a drug addict produces...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sexton, 2003-331.
...394, 559 P.2d 804, 806 (1977) (rejecting claim that compulsion to drink rendered defendant's intoxication involuntary); State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255, 259-60 (Mo.1982) (rejecting argument that drugged condition of defendant was involuntarily produced-where it was caused by defendant's add......
-
Com. v. Kuhn
...Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 376 Mass. Page 112 765, 383 N.E.2d 1115 (1978); State v. Patch, 329 N.W.2d 833 (Minn.1983); State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.1982); State v. Bunn, 283 N.C. 444, 196 S.E.2d 777 (1973); Baggett v. State, 220 Tenn. 592, 421 S.W.2d 629 (1967); Loveday v. State, 74 Wi......
-
State v. Burroughs
...a general or specific intent. State v. Richardson, 495 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Mo. banc 1973). As to involuntary intoxication, State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.1982) is apposite. There, defendant was charged with various offenses. His defense was that he was in a drugged condition which was inv......
-
State v. Shields, s. 61916
...v. Bishop, the defendant attempted to argue his drugged condition was involuntarily produced because he was addicted to drugs. 632 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Mo.1982). The Missouri Supreme Court rejected this argument stating the fact that defendant was addicted to drugs and took drugs to maintain th......
-
§ 24.02 Voluntary Intoxication: General Principles
...and the Criminal Law, 10 Cardozo L. Rev. 393 (1988).[17] See v. State, 757 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ark. 1988); see State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Mo. 1982) ("We have examined the laws of each of those states which deal with the question of whether and to what extent intoxication is a defens......
-
§ 24.02 VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
...and the Criminal Law, 10 Cardozo L. Rev. 393 (1988).[17] . See v. State, 757 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Ark. 1988); see State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Mo. 1982) ("We have examined the laws of each of those states which deal with the question of whether and to what extent intoxication is a defe......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...380 (Fla. 1995), 302 Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993), 311 Bird, State v., 285 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1979), 380 Bishop, State v., 632 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1982), 304 Bjerkaas, State v., 472 N.W.2d 615 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991), 10 Black, United States v., 530 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2008), 124 Blai......