IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA19-554
Filed: 21 January 2020
Guilford County, Nos. 17 CRS 90710-711
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
FAYE LARKIN MEADER, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 19 December 2018 by Judge R.
Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5
December 2019.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Matthew
Baptiste Holloway, for the State.
The Green Firm, PLLC, by Bonnie Keith Green, for defendant-appellant.
YOUNG, Judge.
Where the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the defendant, did not
show that defendant was so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming intent, the trial
court did not err in denying defendant’s request to instruct the jury on voluntary
intoxication or diminished capacity. We find no error.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The relevant and undisputed facts of this case are as follows: On 22 November
2017, Faye Larkin Meader (defendant) arrived at the office of Family Solutions,
appearing and behaving in an intoxicated manner. Law enforcement was contacted
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
to remove her from the premises. While defendant was present, clients at Family
Solutions discovered their car door open. Several items of personal property were
missing from the vehicle, and when police arrived to detain defendant, they
discovered them on her person. On 24 September 2018, defendant was indicted for
felony breaking or entering a motor vehicle, misdemeanor larceny, and misdemeanor
possession of stolen goods or property.
Prior to trial, defendant filed notice of intent to offer the defense of voluntary
intoxication or diminished capacity. The matter proceeded to trial. At the jury charge
conference, defendant requested an instruction on voluntary intoxication or
diminished capacity, on the basis that “each and every witness testified that Ms.
Meader was intoxicated.” The trial court denied this request.
The jury returned verdicts finding defendant guilty on all three charges. The
trial court sentenced defendant to 30 days imprisonment on the charge of
misdemeanor larceny, and entered a suspended sentence of 30 months, to begin upon
defendant’s release from prison on the charges of larceny and breaking or entering a
motor vehicle. Having entered sentences on those two charges, the trial court
arrested judgment on the charge of possession of stolen goods.
Defendant appeals.
II. Standard of Review
-2-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
“[Arguments] challenging the trial court’s decisions regarding jury instructions
are reviewed de novo by this Court.” State v. Osorio, 196 N.C. App. 458, 466, 675
S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). “When determining whether the evidence is sufficient to
entitle a defendant to jury instructions on a defense or mitigating factor, courts must
consider the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant.” State v. Mash, 323
N.C. 339, 348, 372 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1988).
III. Request for Jury Instruction
In her sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred
in denying her request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication. We disagree.
“Voluntary drunkenness is not an excuse for a criminal act, but in certain
instances, it may be sufficient to negate the requisite intent element of a crime.” State
v. Kyle, 333 N.C. 687, 698, 430 S.E.2d 412, 418 (1993). “Where a specific intent
element is an essential element of the offense charged, voluntary intoxication may
negate the existence of that intent.” Id. at 698-99, 430 S.E.2d at 418. “Evidence of
mere intoxication, however, is not enough to meet defendant’s burden of production.
He must produce substantial evidence which would support a conclusion by the judge
that he was so intoxicated that he could not form [the requisite intent].” Mash, 323
N.C. at 346, 372 S.E.2d at 536.
The evidence must show that at the time of the [alleged
crime] the defendant’s mind and reason were so completely
intoxicated and overthrown as to render him utterly
incapable of forming [the requisite intent]. State v. Shelton,
-3-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
164 N.C. 513, 79 S.E. 883 (1913). In the absence of some
evidence of intoxication to such degree, the court is not
required to charge the jury thereon. State v. McLaughlin,
286 N.C. 597, 213 S.E.2d 238 (1975). The question then, in
this case, is whether there was evidence that defendant
was intoxicated to such extent that he was utterly
incapable of forming a specific intent to [commit the crime
charged] so as to require an instruction on intoxication by
the trial judge.
State v. Medley, 295 N.C. 75, 79-80, 243 S.E.2d 374, 377 (1978).
In the instant case, defendant contends that, “viewed in a light most favorable
to her, there was substantial evidence that her mind and reason were so completely
intoxicated and overthrown as to render her utterly incapable of forming the requisite
intent for felony breaking and entering a motor vehicle and misdemeanor larceny and
possession of stolen goods.”
In support of this position, defendant notes that the original call to which police
responded was “a dispatch of an intoxicated subject[,]” and that an officer testified
that, when he first encountered defendant, “she just appeared to be either intoxicated
or impaired by an illegal substance.” The officer further testified that defendant,
while inside of a business and in front of witnesses, pulled down her pants to display
a bruise on her groin. Defendant also notes that the witness who called police said
defendant “seemed intoxicated[;]” that another witness testified that defendant
seemed “a little disoriented, agitated[,]” and “[h]er speech, her kind of line of thinking
was going in a lot of different directions[;]” and that another witness described her
-4-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
peculiar, giggling behavior and unusual conversational topics. Defendant also cites
additional testimony and evidence that she was incoherent, that she may have been
hallucinating, and that she smelled of alcohol.
The State notes, however, that this paints an incomplete picture of the
evidence at trial. While officers were initially called to deal with an intoxicated
individual, and a number of witnesses described defendant as such, defendant was
not arrested for intoxication. To the contrary, one of the witnesses observed that,
while defendant appeared “agitated,” she was “fairly cooperative” in response to
questioning, and was “just answering” the questions put to her by officers. Moreover,
evidence showed that she was aware of her circumstances. Once officers had placed
her in custody for the possession of stolen goods, and had placed her in the back of
the police car, she asked witnesses, “don’t let them . . . take me to jail.”
Defendant cites State v. Keitt for the principle that her voluntary intoxication
served as a defense to the felonious intent required in the crimes charged, and that
it was error to deny her request for a jury instruction. See State v. Keitt, 153 N.C.
App. 671, 571 S.E.2d 35 (2002), aff’d per curiam, 357 N.C. 155, 579 S.E.2d 250 (2003).
However, the facts of that case are distinguishable. In Keitt, a witness testified that
the defendant “was so intoxicated that he was unable to ride a bicycle or even walk
home on his own[;]” another witness testified that the defendant “was barely able to
stand on his own[;]” and another witness testified that the defendant “had trouble
-5-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
navigating and fumbled with the door and the screen door[.]” Id. at 677, 571 S.E.2d
at 39. In the instant case, by contrast, there was no testimony that defendant
stumbled or suffered from limited mobility, nor even that her speech was slurred.
Rather, the evidence merely suggested that she smelled of alcohol and was behaving
somewhat erratically.
We hold that the facts of this case are, instead, more closely aligned with those
of State v. Wilson-Angeles, ___ N.C. App. ___, 795 S.E.2d 657 (2017). In that case, as
in this case, the defendant argued that the evidence was sufficient to entitle her to
an instruction on voluntary intoxication. In support of this argument, the defendant
cited “various behaviors exhibited by Defendant on the night in question, including,
inter alia, yelling profanities, inexplicably singing hymns, claiming to be the victim,
attempting to take her shirt off to show law enforcement an injury, and passing out
at the police department.” Id. at ___, 795 S.E.2d at 666. We held, however, that while
the evidence did show that the defendant “was intoxicated to some degree[,]” it was
insufficient to entitle her to a voluntary intoxication instruction. Id. We went on to
note that the evidence “did not establish how much alcohol Defendant had consumed
prior to committing the crime at issue, which case law suggests is information of
significant consequence to the determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a
voluntary intoxication instruction.” Id. Nor did the evidence “tend to show the length
of time over which Defendant had consumed alcohol before committing the [crime] in
-6-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
this case, a showing which must be made before a defendant is entitled to this
instruction.” Id. We therefore held that defendant was “not entitled to a voluntary
intoxication instruction.” Id. at ___, 795 S.E.2d at 667.
Our reasoning in Wilson-Angeles was not novel. In State v. Ash, 193 N.C. App.
569, 577, 668 S.E.2d 65, 71 (2008), this Court held that while there was some evidence
that the defendant was intoxicated while committing the crime charged, “there was
no evidence as to exactly how much he consumed prior to the commission of the crime
at issue[,]” which, taken with other evidence in that case, supported the trial court’s
decision not to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. Similarly, in State v.
Geddie, 345 N.C. 73, 95, 478 S.E.2d 146, 157 (1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 825, 139
L. Ed. 2d 43 (1997), our Supreme Court held that “[e]vidence tending to show only
that defendant drank some unknown quantity of alcohol over an indefinite period of
time before the murder does not satisfy the defendant’s burden of production.”
Defendant is correct that there was ample evidence of defendant’s intoxication
at the time of the offenses charged. However, mere intoxication is not sufficient to
establish voluntary intoxication as a defense to the formation of intent. As in Wilson-
Angeles, Ash, and Geddie, there was no evidence in the instant case of how much
defendant had consumed, or over what period. There was also insufficient evidence
that defendant was so severely intoxicated, beyond mere inebriation, that she was
-7-
STATE V. MEADER
Opinion of the Court
incapable of comprehending her surroundings or acting on her own, let alone forming
the intent to commit a crime.
Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State
to improperly shift its burden onto defendant with its closing argument. However,
defendant failed to raise timely objection to the State’s closing argument, thus failing
to preserve it for review. Moreover, defendant has failed to argue that this
constituted plain error. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(4). As such, we dismiss such
argument.
Ultimately, the question before us is whether the evidence, taken in the light
most favorable to defendant, tended to show that defendant was intoxicated to such
a profound degree that it was impossible for her to form the requisite intent to
perform the crimes charged. We hold that, even under this standard, defendant’s
evidence did not meet the necessary burden. At most, defendant presented evidence
of some intoxication, but she did not demonstrate that she was “so completely
intoxicated and overthrown” as to render her “utterly incapable” of forming intent.
As such, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request for an
instruction on voluntary intoxication or diminished capacity.
NO ERROR.
Judge TYSON concurs.
Judge BROOK dissents with separate opinion.
-8-
No. COA19-554 – State v. Meader
BROOK, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
defendant in assessing whether a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication was
warranted. Here, there was substantial evidence of Defendant’s intoxication. And
there was substantial evidence that this rendered her incapable of forming the
requisite intent to commit the charged offenses. Finally, there is a reasonable
possibility that the jury would have reached a different result if instructed on
voluntary intoxication. I would thus hold the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s
request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication and that, as a result, she is
entitled to a new trial.
I. Evidence Presented at Trial
On 22 November 2017, Lindsey Penninger and her husband Walter Penninger
completed an appointment with their son at Family Solutions in Greensboro and
discovered that their car had been broken into during their session. There were no
signs of damage or forced entry to the car. Mrs. Penninger testified that, while she
generally locks her car door, she might not have done so on this occasion. Mrs.
Penninger noticed her laptop was missing,1 and Mr. Penninger realized his firearm
magazine was also missing. While they waited for law enforcement to arrive, Mr.
Penninger went back inside the building where he came across Defendant, and he
1 Once Mrs. Penninger returned home, she found her laptop and realized it had never been in
the car.
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
asked her if she had seen anything. Mr. Penninger testified that Defendant answered
that “she was somewhere having sex with a bunch of people on a table, and they have
a video of it. And then somebody jumped off – some guy jumped off three stories and
punched her.”
Officer Jordan Fulp testified that she was dispatched to Family Solutions after
receiving a call of an intoxicated subject and possible breaking and entering. When
she arrived, Officer Fulp went inside the building to speak with Defendant, and “she
automatically started talking about getting beat up the night before by a guy named
Sebastian.” Defendant then “pulled her pants down in front of everybody” to display
a “bruise near her groin area.” Officer Fulp testified that when officers tried to escort
Defendant out of the building, “she immediately became loud[] and she did not want
to follow instructions.” As a result, officers put Defendant in handcuffs, but as they
did so, Defendant started calling for an “Omar” and asked Omar to bring her wallet.
Officer Fulp testified there was no one named Omar on the scene. Defendant also
told Officer Fulp that she needed to get her bra from “the bedroom” and collect her
purse before she could leave with Officer Fulp. Officer Fulp testified there were no
bedrooms in the Family Solutions building and that Defendant did not have any
belongings with her. Officer Fulp was finally able to place Defendant in her patrol
car, where Defendant proceeded to yell, “I love you” several times and later urinated
on herself.
-2-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
Officer Fulp testified she and other officers searched for the items that Mr. and
Mrs. Penninger reported stolen but were not able to locate them. Officer Fulp then
tried to take the handcuffs off Defendant and release her, but “she didn’t want to get
out of [the] car” and had to be “coaxed” out. After Defendant exited the vehicle, Officer
Fulp saw the gun magazine in Defendant’s right front pocket. Officer Fulp asked
Defendant what was in her pocket, and Defendant responded, “[O]h, it’s my
cellphone,” and pulled out the magazine to show Officer Fulp. Defendant had
previously told Officer Fulp that her phone had been broken the night before.
Defendant also had a pair of pink sunglasses and a koozie that read, “Logan and
Macy, Stokesdale, North Carolina, 5-5-2017” sticking out of the V-neck of her shirt
during the entire encounter, both of which belonged to the Penningers and were taken
from their car. Mrs. Penninger testified that the koozie was a party favor from her
sister’s wedding. Officer Fulp then arrested Defendant and transported her to jail.
Defendant’s aunt, Francis Womble, testified that she received a call from her
niece while she was in jail. Ms. Womble testified that Defendant “sounded delirious”
and told her “she had gone to see Keith[] [a]nd she got in his car and started blowing
his horn.” Ms. Womble testified Defendant thought Keith had called the police and
had her arrested. Ms. Womble testified that Keith lives in High Point.
II. Governing Case Law
-3-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
As discussed by the majority, “[arguments] challenging the trial court’s
decisions regarding jury instructions are reviewed de novo.” State v. Osorio, 196 N.C.
App. 458, 466, 675 S.E.2d 144, 149 (2009). When an instruction is requested by
counsel and the trial judge considers and refuses the request, the issue is preserved
for appeal. See Wall v. Stout, 310 N.C. 184, 188-89, 311 S.E.2d 571, 574 (1984).
“Voluntary intoxication is not a legal excuse for a criminal act.” State v.
Gerald, 304 N.C. 511, 521, 284 S.E.2d 312, 318 (1981). It is a defense, however, “if
the degree of intoxication is such that a defendant could not form the specific intent
required for the underlying offense.” State v. Golden, 143 N.C. App. 426, 430, 546
S.E.2d 163, 166 (2001). In order for the trial court to be required to give an instruction
on voluntary intoxication, the defendant must “produce substantial evidence which
would support a conclusion by the trial court that at the time of the crime for which
he is being tried defendant’s mind and reason were so completely intoxicated and
overthrown as to render him utterly incapable of forming the requisite specific
intent.” State v. Ash, 193 N.C. App. 569, 576, 668 S.E.2d 65, 70-71 (2008) (citation
and marks omitted). The defendant may rely exclusively on evidence presented by
the State. State v. Herring, 338 N.C. 271, 275, 449 S.E.2d 183, 186 (1994).
Importantly, when assessing whether to give an instruction on intoxication, “courts
must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.” State v.
Mash, 323 N.C. 339, 348, 372 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1988) (citation omitted).
-4-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
Our Court has found substantial evidence of intoxication based on witnesses’
perceptions of the defendant. In State v. Keitt, 153 N.C. App. 671, 571 S.E.2d 35
(2002), aff’d per curiam, 357 N.C. 155, 579 S.E.2d 250 (2003), a witness testified that
“at some time between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the night of the break-in, the
defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to ride a bicycle or even walk home
on his own.” Id. at 677, 571 S.E.2d at 39. Another witness testified that when the
defendant was brought home, he “was barely able to stand on his own.” Id. The
prosecuting witness testified that when defendant “was trying to leave her home, he
had trouble navigating and fumbled with the door.” Id. Finally, when the officer
went to arrest “the defendant the next morning, he smelled alcohol on the defendant.”
Id. We held this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant,
showed that he was entitled to the voluntary intoxication instruction. Id.
Even if there is evidence of substantial intoxication, when a defendant takes
“deliberate actions that suggest a clear purpose in carrying out” the crime, a
voluntary intoxication instruction is not warranted. See State v. Wilson-Angeles, 251
N.C. App. 886, 897, 795 S.E.2d 657, 667 (2017). Taking steps “designed to hide [the]
defendant’s participation” in the crime, like disposing of evidence, demonstrates the
defendant’s ability to “plan and think rationally” and shows that a defendant is not
so intoxicated as to be unable to form intent. State v. Long, 354 N.C. 534, 538-39, 557
S.E.2d 89, 92 (2001). Additionally, when a defendant takes “deliberate actions that
-5-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
suggest a clear purpose in carrying out the” crime, it indicates a defendant has “some
level of awareness of her surroundings.” Wilson-Angeles, 251 N.C. App. at 897-98,
795 S.E.2d at 667. Deliberate actions include leaving “the scene, gather[ing] supplies,
and return[ing] to . . . carry out the crime.” Id.
On appeal, if the reviewing court determines the trial court erred in denying
the defendant’s request on voluntary intoxication, the question then becomes whether
the trial court’s error requires a new trial. Keitt, 153 N.C. App. at 677, 571 S.E.2d at
39.
A defendant is prejudiced by errors relating to rights
arising other than under the Constitution of the United
States when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the
error in question not been committed, a different result
would have been reached at the trial out of which the
appeal arises. The burden of showing such prejudice under
this subsection is upon the defendant.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443(a) (2017). This requires showing that there is a
“reasonable possibility that a different result would have occurred had the instruction
been given.” Keitt, 153 N.C. App. at 678, 571 S.E.2d at 40. Where “the case is
relatively close on the degree of . . . culpability . . . due to both the substantial evidence
of defendant’s intoxication at the time he committed the crime and . . . the manner of
the [offense] and defendant’s actions immediately before and after it[,] . . . there is a
reasonable possibility that a different result would have obtained at trial” when an
-6-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
intoxication instruction is erroneously omitted. Mash, 323 N.C. at 349-350, 372
S.E.2d at 538-39.
III. Applying Case Law to these Facts
Taken in the light most favorable to Defendant, there was substantial evidence
presented at trial supporting the conclusion that Defendant was intoxicated and, as
a result, incapable of forming the requisite specific intent. Further, the trial court’s
failure to give the requested voluntary intoxication instruction prejudiced Defendant
and thus requires a new trial.
A. Intent
i. Evidence of Intoxication
There was substantial evidence here, viewed in the light most favorable to
Defendant, of her intoxication. As the majority acknowledges, “the original call to
which police responded was ‘a dispatch of an intoxicated subject.’” Meader, supra at
___. The intoxicated subject in question was Defendant, who witnesses described as
“agitated,” “irritated,” and “delirious.” Officer Fulp testified that “by first appearance
[Defendant] . . . appeared to be either intoxicated or impaired by an illegal substance.”
Defendant also inexplicably told officers that a gun magazine in her pocket was a flip
phone and seemed unable to answer questions directly. For instance, when Mr.
Penninger asked Defendant if she had seen anything with regard to the breaking and
entering, Defendant responded that “she was somewhere having sex with a bunch of
-7-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
people on a table, and they have a video of it. And then somebody jumped off – some
guy jumped off three stories and punched her.” Also, when officers arrived and began
speaking with her, Defendant pulled down her pants, began calling for “Omar,” and
said she “needed to get her bra from the bedroom.” Finally, Defendant urinated on
herself while in the police car.
The majority asserts “that th[e] [evidence of intoxication] paints an incomplete
picture of the evidence at trial.” Meader, supra at ___. Specifically, the majority
states that while the evidence showed Defendant was agitated, disoriented, and
intoxicated or impaired, she was also “fairly cooperative.” Id. However, to “view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant” means if there is evidence of
agitation, disorientation, intoxication or impairment, then Defendant was agitated,
disoriented, and intoxicated or impaired—this despite evidence that Defendant was
also somewhat cooperative. See Mash, 323 N.C. at 348, 372 S.E.2d at 538 (“While
there is some evidence to the contrary, when viewed in the light most favorable to
defendant, the evidence of defendant’s state of intoxication is enough to require the
voluntary intoxication instruction.”). Relatedly, the majority’s emphasis on the
absence of information about how much and when Defendant consumed intoxicating
substances here is misplaced. Such information is not necessarily dispositive. See,
e.g., Kiett, 153 N.C. App. at 677-78, 571 S.E.2d at 39-40 (holding defendant was
entitled to voluntary intoxication instruction despite lack of evidence as to how much
-8-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
and when defendant consumed alcohol). And fixating on it in this instance elevates
form over substance; everyone—the State, Officer Fulp, the Penningers, and Ms.
Womble—agrees Defendant was intoxicated.
ii. Evidence of Lack of Requisite Specific Intent
Viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant, the evidence in this case also
shows a distinct lack of deliberation and purpose. Defendant here made no attempt
to leave the scene of the crime. She took no steps to hide her participation in the
crime. With seemingly no regard for the consequences of her actions, she showed
officers the items that had been taken from the car. Nor did Defendant take
deliberate actions that indicated a level of awareness of her surroundings. Two of the
three items Defendant took from the Penningers’ car had little to no value, and
Defendant told law enforcement that the gun magazine in her pocket was a flip
phone. Furthermore, according to both Officer Fulp’s and Ms. Womble’s testimony,
Defendant either thought she was with Keith in High Point or in an unknown house
with Omar.
All of this stands in stark contrast to the case central to the majority’s analysis,
State v. Wilson-Angeles. While there was evidence in Wilson-Angeles that defendant
“was intoxicated to some degree,” 251 N.C. App. at 898, 795 S.E.2d at 667, she also
“quickly handed off a container of alcohol as law enforcement approached her, [which]
indicat[ed] some level of awareness of her surroundings,” id. The defendant in
-9-
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
Wilson-Angeles also took “deliberate actions that suggest[ed] a clear purpose in
carrying out the attempted arson.” Id. at 897, 795 S.E.2d at 667. Specifically, she
had to “leave the scene, gather supplies, and return to [the prosecuting witness’s]
door to carry out the crime” of making a Molotov cocktail. Id. at 898, 795 S.E.2d at
667.
B. Prejudice
Defendant also has shown “a reasonable possibility that a different result
would have occurred had the instruction been given.” Keitt, 153 N.C. App. at 678,
571 S.E.2d at 39. First and foremost, and as noted above, the evidence of Defendant’s
profound intoxication as well as her actions around the time of the offense raised
serious questions about whether Defendant could form the requisite intent. Mash,
323 N.C. at 349-350, 372 S.E.2d at 538-39. Even without the requested instruction,
the jury sent two questions during deliberations showing they were struggling with
the issue of intent. The first jury question stated that the jury was evenly split on
the issue of intent. The trial judge instructed the jury that it must reach a unanimous
verdict. The jury next requested a definition for “utterly incapable” in response to
the State’s closing argument that Defendant was not “utterly incapable” of forming
- 10 -
STATE V. MEADER
BROOK, J., dissenting
the requisite intent for the crimes charged. In short, there is a reasonable possibility
that there would have been a different result if the jury had been properly instructed. 2
IV. Conclusion
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant, there was
substantial evidence of intoxication such that her “mind and reason were so
completely intoxicated and overthrown as to render h[er] utterly incapable of forming
[the requisite intent].” State v. Shelton, 164 N.C. 513, 518, 79 S.E. 883, 885 (1913),
overruled on other grounds by State v. Oakes, 249 N.C. 282, 106 S.E.2d 206 (1958).
Further, there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been
reached at trial if the requested instruction had been given. I would, therefore,
reverse and remand for a new trial.
2The majority also cites State v. Ash in support of its assertion that an intoxication instruction
was not necessary here. Ash is readily distinguishable as, among other things, the alleged error in
that case was not preserved, meaning defendant needed to show plain error. 193 N.C. App. at 575,
668 S.E.2d at 70. Defendant here need show only a reasonable possibility that the error at issue
produced a different result—a far less deferential standard.
- 11 -
State v. MeaderÂ
Combined Opinion