Appeal from Macomb, Frank Jeanette, J.
Leave to appeal denied, 396 Mich 848.
McGregor, P. J., and T. M. Burns and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.
1. -- Intoxication -- Defense of Intoxication -- Specific Intent Crimes.
Voluntary intoxication can be a defense to a criminal act only where the crime charged requires a specific intent to be proved.
2. -- Specific Intent Crimes -- Definition.
Specific intent means some intent in addition to the intent to do a physical act which a crime requires, and specific intent crimes are limited only to those crimes which are required to be committed either purposefully or knowingly; therefore, in order to commit a specific intent crime an offender must subjectively desire or know that the prohibited result will occur.
3. -- Unlawfully Driving Away Automobile -- Specific Intent -- Intoxication as Defense.
A specific intent to take possession unlawfully of a vehicle is a necessary ingredient of the joyriding statute, and, therefore, a defendant has a right to interpose an intoxication defense to such a charge (MCLA 750.413; MSA 28.645).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcgregor
Lawrence Lerma was convicted of unlawfully driving away an automobile. Defendant appeals.
Defendant, Lawrence Lerma, was convicted by a jury of taking possession and driving away a motor vehicle, contrary to MCLA 750.413; MSA 28.645. *fn1 Defendant now appeals that conviction as a matter of right.
During trial, the defendant attempted to establish a defense based upon intoxication. However, the trial court, in its charge to the jury, precluded intoxication as a permissible defense, stating:
"There has been some testimony that the defendant and his companion had wine to drink. Ladies and gentlemen, it is well settled law in this state that except in a crime involving specific ...