P. v. Vargas CA4/3
Rafael Vargas was convicted of attempted second degree robbery and sentenced to formal probation for three years. He appeals, arguing the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during closing argument. Specifically, Vargas complains it was improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury that his claim of severe intoxication at the time of the alleged robbery, causing him to black out and not remember anything, was not a defense to the charge.
We find no misconduct. The prosecutor’s argument to the jury was consistent with the law precluding the defense of unconsciousness in cases such as this, where the defendant’s claimed intoxication was voluntary. Although Vargas could have relied on this claim to suggest his intention during the incident had been to do something other than commit a robbery, he could not rely on it to support an argument that he lacked capacity to form any conscious intent and thus had none at all.
Comments on P. v. Vargas CA4/3