Case Summary - Eric Sakil v. State

Eric Sakil got into a heated argument with his wife over the paternity of one of their children. When you start there, there's really no where to go but down. At one point his wife locked him out of the apartment, but he forced the door open. This hit his wife in the face. She called 911 and hinted at Sakil's prior drug use, but insisted that he was not intoxicated. The State charged Sakil with domestic violence assault enhanced with a prior assault on a family member.

At trial, a psychiatrist testified to Sakil's prescription drug use and prior drug and alcohol abuse. Sakil encouraged the disclosure of this information and suggested a link between the past drug use and Sakil's symptoms on the date of the offense, namely hyperstimulation, paranoia, and hypervigilance. So, the trial court instructed the jury on voluntary intoxication over Sakil's objection. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there was no evidence of intoxication and it harmed Sakil because it placed the burden on him to show he wasn't intoxicated. [Here's a link to the court of appeals case info.]

A unanimous Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court. Judge Meyers, clearly having watched Jason Lezak winning the 400 relay for Michael Phelps and the rest of the American swim team on YouTube, wrote his second unanimous opinion on the day. According to Meyers, there was sufficient evidence, cultivated by Sakil, in fact, that might suggest to a jury that intoxication somehow excused Sakil's conduct. Moreover, he disagreed with the court of appeals holding that the voluntary intoxication instruction relieved the State of proving the requisite mental state. If anything the instruction reaffirms the mental-state requirements rather than deletes them. [Here's a link to the CCA case info if you're interested.]

* * * * *

While I'm a little concerned that this is basing the need for an instruction upon the inference of evidence rather than actual evidence, that's kind of the concern in a lot of close jury instruction cases. Clearly, though, this is the right result as the defendant seemed to put the issue in play only to complain that there was no issue.