Legal Opinion

People v. Castillo

California Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1997No. Docket Nos. S056310, B099613PublishedCited by 99 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  3. People v. Mendoza TelloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. BurgenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  5. People v. SailleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by99 opinions

  1. People v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. People v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  3. People v. SmitheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. People v. OchoaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

94 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API