People v. Castillo
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
A jury may consider evidence of voluntary intoxication in determining whether a defendant had the requisite mental state for first degree murder. The issue in this case is whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a “pinpoint” jury instruction specifically relating voluntary intoxication to premeditation and deliberation. The Court of Appeal found counsel was ineffective. We disagree because the trial court gave a fully adequate pinpoint instruction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
I. Facts
The prosecution evidence showed that on…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- People v. Mendoza TelloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. BurgenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- People v. SailleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by99 opinions
- People v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. SmitheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. OchoaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
94 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.