In People v. Soto, a 5-2 Supreme Court today holds that evidence of a defendant’s voluntary intoxication is admissible to possibly disprove the malice necessary to support a murder conviction, but only in a limited way. The court’s opinion by Justice Ming Chin — based on the interpretation of a specific statute regarding voluntary intoxication, and, particularly, on the statute’s legislative history — concludes the evidence can show the defendant did not intend to kill, but is not admissible to establish the defendant believed it was necessary to act in self defense. The court also rejects a constitutional attack on the statute as construed.
Justice Goodwin Liu, joined by pro tem Justice David Thompson, writes a concurring and dissenting opinion. He states that although the majority “makes a perfectly good policy argument,” its decision is contrary to the statute’s unambiguous terms. Justice Liu nevertheless finds harmless what he considers to be the error in the superior court’s instruction on voluntary intoxication.
Justice Liu is also critical of the majority’s constitutional analysis, including the majority’s decision to even reach the question because the defendant “does not straightforwardly raise it.” It was apparently raised instead by amici curiae California Public Defenders Association and Santa Clara County Public Defenders. The court just last week decided an issue raised by an amicus.
The court both affirms the Sixth District Court of Appeal’s judgment and disapproves its opinion. It’s another case of right result, wrong reason. Unlike the Supreme Court majority, the Court of Appeal found instructional error, but it concluded the error was harmless
