State v. Sells

ORS 161.125(1) provides, "voluntary intoxication 'shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge'[.]” Further, evidence of voluntary intoxication "may be offered whenever it is relevant to negat[e] an element of the crime charged.” Id.

Defendant appealed a conviction for murder in the second degree with a firearm, assigning error to the trial court's refusal to consider intoxication as a defense for the requisite mental capacity for the offense. Defendant argued the verdict demonstrated that the court did not believe voluntary intoxication may negate the mental state required for murder, violating ORS 161.125(1). The State argued that the error was not preserved and therefore not reviewable. ORS 161.125(1) provides, "voluntary intoxication 'shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge'[.]” Further, evidence of voluntary intoxication "may be offered whenever it is relevant to negat[e] an element of the crime charged.” Id. The Court found that Defendant had repeatedly raised the issue of voluntary intoxication as a defense and the issue was sufficiently preserved. The Court held that the trial court did not misapply the law because it considered Defendant's voluntary intoxication before explicitly finding that the testifying psychiatric expert opined that Defendant had the requisite mental state. Affirmed.