People State New York v. Phillip Carlo

Under the unique facts of this case, it was error to refuse to charge with respect to involuntary intoxication. If the defendants testimony was believed, the jury could have found that he was acting under the influence of an hallucinogenic drug and was unable to control his behavior. Further, there was evidence to support the conclusion that the drug was taken involuntarily, for it could have been found that the defendant thought that the pill, which he claimed was given to him by the complainant, was in the nature of an aspirin or tranquilizer, and that the complainant, knowing defendant did not intend or wish to take an hallucinogenic drug, nevertheless, intentionally and deceptively, gave the defendant a pill of that character. Moreover, the defense of involuntary intoxication was applicable to both the assault and weapon charges since "criminal liability" requires at the very least a "voluntary act". (People v. Robinson, 2 Parker Cr. Rep. 235, 304; Penal Law, § 15.10; see 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 69). And, contrary to the Peoples contention, the failure to charge involuntary intoxication was relevant to the weapon charge since there was testimony indicating that defendant obtained the gun only after he was inside the apartment and after he ingested the pill. Additionally, although no objection was taken, we note that the court committed error when it instructed the jury that voluntary intoxication could not be considered with respect to the crime of assault in the third degree. However, since that crime includes the element of "intent to cause physical injury" (Penal Law, § 120.00, subd. 1), the issue of intoxication could be considered "to negative" that element of the crime (Penal Law, § 15.25; People [46 A.D.2d 764 Page 765]