State v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 30 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 48281-1,48281-1
• Citation: 97 Wn.2d 873,651 P.2d 217
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Steven Lynn BROOKS, Petitioner.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 873

97 Wn.2d 873

651 P.2d 217

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Steven Lynn BROOKS, Petitioner.

No. 48281-1.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Sept. 30, 1982.

Kenneth A. Lee, Everett, for petitioner.

Russ Juckett, Snohomish County Prosecutor, Asa Glazer, Deputy, Pros. Atty., Everett, for respondent.

STAFFORD, Justice.

The defendant, Steven Brooks, appeals from a judgment and sentence entered on a jury's verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a). Defendant assigns error to the trial court's refusal to give his proposed instruction on voluntary intoxication and to the trial court's refusal to admit opinion testimony of the defense psychologist concerning premeditation.

I VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

The trial court instructed the jury that to convict the defendant of murder in the first degree it must find he acted "with intent to cause the death" of the victim and that "the intent to cause the death was premeditated." The State appears to agree intoxication may be shown for its bearing on both intent, State v. Rio, 38 Wash.2d 446, 453-54, 230 P.2d 308 (1951), and premeditation. State v. Hartley, 25 Wash.2d 211, 223-24, 170 P.2d 333 (1946). The trial court refused, however, to give defendant's proposed instruction Both parties agree there was insufficient evidence of involuntary intoxication to negate specific intent. Further, the State concedes defendant's proposed instruction on voluntary intoxication correctly states the general law. ¹ The question, then, is whether the instruction was sufficiently supported by evidence of the effect drinking had on defendant's ability to premeditate an intent to kill rather than on his ability to form the specific intent itself.

                bearing on voluntary intoxication asserting there was no evidence that the consumption of alcohol affected defendant's ability to form an intent or impaired his mental state.   In so ruling, the trial court stated that premeditation involves the passage of time and is not a mental state.   Thus, the court held, voluntary intoxication has no bearing on premeditation.   At the time of closing argument the trial court did permit defendant to argue[651 P.2d 218]  that the consumption of alcohol reduced defendant's ability to premeditate
                

Although the defendant's argument relates to proof of intoxication and its effect on premeditation alone, the State suggests the rules governing evidence of voluntary intoxication are the same whether specific intent or premeditation is at issue. Thus, the State argues, it is proper to turn for guidance to those cases involving voluntary intoxication as it relates solely to specific intent. In that regard, then, the State asserts more was needed to support the proposed instruction than evidence of the excessive consumption of alcohol. It contends that additionally defendant must establish the drinking had an effect on defendant's ability to form a specific intent. State v. King, 24 Wash.App. 495, 501-02, 601 P.2d 982 (1979). It is the latter requirement the State contends is missing, i.e., an absence of substantial evidence that defendant's drinking The State's argument oversimplifies the issue. Intent and premeditation are not synonymous. They are separate and distinct elements of the crime of murder in the first degree. RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a), .050(a). Premeditation is the element that distinguishes first from second degree murder as charged herein. State v. Shirley, 60 Wash.2d 277, 278, 373 P.2d 777 (1962); State v. Rutten, 13 Wash. 203, 212, 43 P. 30 (1895).

interfered with his ability to form a specific intent to kill (and thus, inferentially, his ability to premeditate such an intent).

Although intent and premeditation each involve processes of the mind, their impact upon the ultimate decision to be made by a jury is dissimilar. "Intent" involves the mental state of "acting with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime." ² On the other hand, the verb "premeditate" encompasses the mental process of thinking beforehand, deliberation, reflection, weighing or reasoning for a period of time, however short. ³ Thus, the objective or purpose to take human life (sufficient to support a charge of second degree murder) must have been formed after some period of deliberation, reflection or weighing in the mind for the act to constitute first degree murder. One may be capable of forming an intent sufficient to support a charge of second degree murder and still be incapable of deliberation or forming a premeditated intent to take the life of another.

The question before us, then, is whether evidence of the consumption of alcohol was sufficient to permit the jury to consider whether the amount consumed had an effect upon defendant's ability to reflect, reason, deliberate or weigh in the mind an objective or purpose to take human life. We hold there was sufficient evidence, which if believed by the jury, would support a determination that defendant was Without question some of the evidence of intoxication is in dispute. Nevertheless, there is evidence, which if believed by the jury, would establish the following: On June 21, 1979, defendant went camping with a friend near the place where the victim's body was found on June 22. Defendant began drinking beer, whiskey and rum and continued to do so almost constantly from June 21 through the afternoon of the victim's death.

unable to premeditate an intent to take another's life.

Numerous witnesses described defendant's condition as follows: he was drunk; he was "staggering around ... drunk, a bottle of whiskey in [his] hands ... through the biggest part of the day"; he was offered a grey spider which he ate and washed down with whiskey; his face was blotchy and his eyes were "buggy red"; his speech was slurred; he was trembling; he walked lopsided; he was unsteady on his feet; he swayed back and forth; he stumbled; and, he staggered and fell in the water. Considerably less evidence than the foregoing was deemed sufficient to support an instruction on voluntary intoxication in State v. Jones, 95 Wash.2d 616, 628 P.2d 472 (1981). ⁴

In addition, Dr. Lubach, a psychologist who had done extensive interviewing and psychological testing of defendant, offered to testify about defendant's ability to premeditate or deliberate. The offer of proof indicated the psychologist would testify that assuming the personality disorder revealed by his tests, the excessive usage of alcohol, and the decrease in defendant's ability to control The trial court's rejection of Dr. Lubach's testimony has been assigned as error which will be discussed in Part II of this opinion. It is sufficient to say, at this juncture, that the testimony taken as a whole, particularly when coupled with the defendant's offer of proof involving the doctor's testimony, was sufficient to support the requested instruction on voluntary intoxication insofar as it pertained to premeditation. Failure to give the requested instruction constituted reversible error.

                aggressive impulses when under the influence of alcohol, "He would be very probable to

...