Appeal from Washington Circuit Court. CC-94-015; 94-016; 94-017. Richmond Pearson, TRIAL JUDGE.
Released for Publication April 1, 1995.
Bowen, Presiding Judge. All Judges concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bowen
The appellant, Robert James Davenport, was charged by separate indictments with the first degree rape of his wife, the first degree rape of his 12-year-old stepdaughter, and the first degree sexual abuse of his wife. He was convicted of all three charges and was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment on each of the rape convictions and to 2 years' imprisonment on the sexual abuse conviction. The appellant raises two issues on this direct appeal from those convictions.
The appellant claims that the trial court erred in failing to give nine of his ten requested jury charges on voluntary intoxication and specific intent.
The trial court instructed the jury as the appellant requested in his charge #6 that "the degree of intoxication necessary to negate specific intent must amount to insanity." C.R. 41.
In this regard, the trial court instructed the jury:
"As related to intoxication, intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, however, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary is admissible in evidence whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense charged.
"Intoxication in itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect within the meaning of the statute in this section. Intoxication includes a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body. Voluntary intoxication means intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduced into his body, the tendency of which is to cause intoxication. That he knows or ought to know it will cause intoxication.
"And I will charge you further that the degree of intoxication to negate any specific intent to commit a crime must amount, under the law, to insanity." R. 180-81.
Requested charges #1 and #2 -- the only requested charges not dealing with intoxication -- were properly refused because they were covered in that part of the trial court's oral charge dealing with intent.
Charge #8 was properly refused because it discussed intoxication negating the element of malice -- not an ...