Hood was drunk. The police
came to arrest him and he fought back. He ended up taking one policeman's
gun and shooting him with it.
Hood was arrested and charged
with assault with a deadly weapon.
The Trial Judge gave confusing
instruction to the jury about how they should take Hood's intoxication
into account.
The Trial Court convicted Hood
of assault. He appealed.
The Appellate Court upheld the
conviction. Hood appealed.
The California Supreme Court
reversed and remanded for retrial.
The California Supreme Court
found that intoxication is to be considered a factor for specific
intent crimes, but not to be
considered as a factor for general intent crimes.
In this case, since Hood was
charged with assault with a deadly weapon (a general intent
crime), the case should be retried and the jury instructed not to take
Hood's intoxication into consideration.
The Court noted that if
Hood was charged with a specific intent crime (such as assault with intent to kill), then his intoxication could be considered
as a factor.
Later California adopted Cal.
Penal Code §22(b), which says,
"evidence or voluntary intoxication is admissible solely on the issue
of whether or not the defendant actually formed the specific intent."
Although the distinctions
between specific intent and general
intent crimes are pretty vague, the
general rule is that if the crime involves a simple action (such as basic
assault), then intoxication is not to be considered because even a drunk
guy is capable of intending to punch someone. But if it is a complex
action that requires premeditation or forethought of consequences (such as
assault with the intent to kill), then intoxication can be considered because
a drunk guy is less likely to be able to consider the consequences of his
actions.
