During jury deliberations, the trial court did not err by providing the statutory language regarding voluntary intoxication (PC 29.4), as opposed to the CALCRIM jury instruction (CALCRIM 625). Appellant was charged with murder. During deliberations, the jury asked about intoxication in relation to culpability in a “heat of passion” situation. The defense requested trial court to respond with CALCRIM 625, the standard voluntary intoxication instruction. Instead, the trial court responded by providing the language of PC 29.4(b). The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court did not err by providing PC 29.4(b) since the trial court’s other instructions were consistent with CALCRIM 625.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C098819.PDF