People v. Givan
2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 46, 233 Cal. App. 4th 335, 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's subjective mistaken belief about their level of intoxication, even if allegedly caused by consuming an energy drink that masks the alcohol's effects, is not a valid mistake of fact defense to crimes requiring a mental state of gross negligence or general intent.
Facts:
- On the night before the incident, DeMarcus Monte Givan drank Hennessy mixed with a Monster Energy drink, testifying he stopped drinking around 10:00 p.m.
- The following morning at approximately 8:00 a.m., Givan was driving his passenger, Eric Bender, home.
- Givan drove at approximately 74 miles per hour in a 50 mph zone, ran a red light, and collided with a vehicle carrying Tommy and Laura Fulce.
- The collision resulted in the death of Laura Fulce and caused major, potentially life-threatening injuries to Tommy Fulce.
- Approximately one hour after the crash, a blood test revealed Givan had a blood-alcohol level of 0.17 percent.
- At trial, Givan's defense expert testified that the stimulant ingredients in the Monster Energy drink could have masked the physiological effects of alcohol, preventing Givan from subjectively perceiving his level of impairment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kern County District Attorney charged DeMarcus Monte Givan in trial court with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (count 1), DUI causing injury (count 2), and driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level causing injury (count 3).
- Givan pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found Givan guilty on all counts and found true all related allegations.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and imposed a sentence.
- Givan, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have a sua sponte duty to instruct a jury on a mistake of fact defense where a defendant claims he was unaware of his level of intoxication because he consumed an energy drink along with alcohol?
Opinions:
Majority - Kane, J.
No. A trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on a mistake of fact defense in this context because the defense is not legally applicable to the crimes charged. For the crime of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the required mental state is gross negligence, which is judged by an objective standard of what a reasonable person would have been aware of, making the defendant’s subjective belief about his impairment irrelevant. For the general intent crimes of DUI causing injury, a mistake of fact defense is only available if the mistake was both actual and reasonable, and a mistake stemming from voluntary intoxication is not considered legally reasonable, regardless of whether an energy drink was also consumed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the availability of the mistake of fact defense in cases involving voluntary intoxication, especially with the rise of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. It establishes that a defendant cannot negate the objective standard of gross negligence by claiming a subjective lack of awareness of impairment. By ruling that a mistake of fact induced by voluntary intoxication is legally unreasonable, the court prevents defendants from using the masking effects of stimulants as a shield against liability for general intent crimes like DUI. This precedent reinforces a strict public policy holding individuals accountable for the consequences of driving after voluntarily consuming alcohol.
