The following facts are undisputed. The defendant and the victim, Jack Peters, were acquainted through the victim’s son, Dirk Peters, with whom the defendant had attended high school. In early 1993, the defendant began to exhibit symptoms of a mental disorder manifested by a delusional belief that Dirk, assisted by the victim, systematically was destroying the defendant’s life. Specifically, the defendant believed that, in 1981, Dirk had poisoned him with methamphetamine and had hypnotized him in order to obtain control of his thoughts. The defendant believed that Dirk had been acting with the approval of the victim, who, the defendant also believed, was the mastermind of a large organization bent on controlling the minds of others. The defendant further believed that Dirk and the victim were responsible for the defendant’s loss of employment, sexual inadequacy, physical weakness and other incapacities, as well as the deaths of the defendant’s mother and several family dogs. In addition, the defendant blamed the victim and Dirk for the breakup of the defendant’s relationship with a former girlfriend.

Beginning in approximately February, 1993, the defendant began contacting law enforcement authorities to inform them of the conspiracy by the victim and Dirk to destroy his life and the lives of others. He informed the police that Dirk was continuing to drug and brainwash people, and that Dirk should be stopped. He blamed the victim and Dirk for his own drug involvement and claimed that they were ruining other people’s lives as well. In May and June, 1993, the defendant repeatedly called the police, requesting their assistance in combatting the mind control conspiracy by the victim and Dirk. The police informed him that it was impossible to investigate his allegations. On August 5, 1993, the defendant went to see the victim at his home in the city of Greenwich. He quarreled with the victim and then shot him numerous times with a semiautomatic revolver that he had purchased two days earlier from a gun dealer in the city of New Haven. Later that day, the defendant entered the Greenwich police headquarters and stated that he had shot the victim because he “had to do it.” The defendant thereafter gave a sworn statement to the police in which he indicated, among other things, that: (1) his life had been ruined by Dirk, who had drugged, hypnotized and brainwashed him; (2) the victim had assisted Dirk in these activities; (3) Dirk and the victim were responsible for the defendant’s schizophrenia; (4) the conduct of Dirk and the victim required “drastic action” and “drastic retribution”; and (5) the defendant had shot the victim repeatedly at the victim’s home earlier that day.

At trial, the defendant raised his mental illness as an affirmative defense under § 53a–13. The jury, however, rejected the defendant’s claim of insanity and convicted him of murder. The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to sixty years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Section 53a– 13 (a) provides that “[i]n any prosecution for an offense, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant, at the time he committed the proscribed act or acts, lacked substantial capacity, as a result of mental disease or defect, either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to control his conduct within the requirements of the law.”

In ascertaining the meaning of the language of § 53a–13 as it applies to this case, therefore, we look, in the first instance, to the relevant legislative history for guidance. That legislative history includes the genealogy of the insanity defense in this state, the history of the Model Penal Code provision upon which § 53a–13 is based and the legislative debate surrounding the enactment of § 53a–13. Prior to the enactment of § 53a–13, legal insanity was determined on the basis of a two part test established under our common law. 12 In 1967, as a result of growing dissatisfaction with the standards from which this common law test derived, the General Assembly adopted the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code test for insanity, now codified at § 53a–13, 13 as a statutory standard to be invoked in lieu of the common law test.

The Model Penal Code test provides, in language nearly identical to that now contained in § 53a–13 (a), that “[a] person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”

For purposes of this appeal, three features of the Model Penal Code test are noteworthy. First, like our prior common law standard, this test encompasses, albeit in a different form, both a cognitive and a volitional prong. Under the cognitive prong, a person is considered legally insane if, as a result of mental disease or defect, “he lacks substantial capacity … to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct.”

Under the volitional prong, a person also would be considered legally insane if “he lacks substantial capacity … to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” Second, the Model Penal Code test focuses on the defendant’s actual appreciation of, rather than merely his knowledge of, the wrongfulness of his conduct.

The more difficult question, and the issue that we asked the parties to address at the reargument of this appeal; see footnote 11; is how properly to define the moral element inherent in the term “wrongfulness” under § 53a–13 (a). The defendant contends that morality must be defined in purely personal terms, such that a defendant is not responsible for his criminal acts as long as his mental disease or defect causes him personally to believe that those acts are morally justified, even though he may appreciate that his conduct is wrong in the sense that it is both illegal and contrary to societal standards of morality.

The state, on the other hand, contends that morality must be defined by societal standards, such that a defendant is not responsible for his criminal acts unless, because of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate that his actions were wrong under society’s moral standards. Although we agree with the state that the proper test must incorporate principles of societal morality, we conclude that the state’s interpretation of the cognitive prong of § 53a–13 (a) does not sufficiently account for a delusional defendant’s own distorted perception of society’s moral standards. Accordingly, we conclude that a defendant may establish that he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the “wrongfulness” of his conduct if he can prove that, at the time of his criminal act, as a result of mental disease or defect, he substantially misperceived reality and harbored a delusional belief that society, under the circumstances as the defendant honestly but mistakenly understood them, would not have morally condemned his actions.

We are unwilling to negate the legislature’s choice of the term “wrongfulness” by treating these otherwise distinct terms as virtually identical. We conclude, rather, that a defendant does not truly “appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct” as stated in § 53a–13 (a) if a mental disease or defect causes him both to harbor a distorted perception of reality and to believe that, under the circumstances as he honestly perceives them, his actions do not offend societal morality, even though he may also be aware that society, on the basis of the criminal code, does not condone his actions. Thus, a defendant would be entitled to prevail under § 53a–13 (a) if, as a result of his mental disease or defect, he sincerely believes that society would approve of his conduct if it shared his understanding of the circumstances underlying his actions.

The state contends that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction defining the term “wrongfulness” under § 53a–13 (a) because he failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support such an instruction. According to the state, the evidence submitted on the defendant’s behalf did not establish, in accordance with the wrongfulness test discussed above, that his “delusion deprived him of a substantial capacity to appreciate that the [killing] of the victim was wrong under society’s moral standards.” Although the state does not seriously dispute that the defendant suffered from a mental disease that caused him to misperceive reality, the state claims that the evidence merely tended to show, in accordance with the purely personal standard we have rejected, that the defendant had followed his own subjective moral calculus in seeking revenge for the perceived actions of the victim and Dirk.

Because legal insanity is an affirmative defense for which the defendant bears the burden of proof, a defendant is entitled to receive a jury instruction on legal insanity only if he has adduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defense has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, the issue is not whether the defendant presented sufficient evidence to warrant a general charge on the insanity defense. The state does not contend otherwise. The issue, rather, is whether the defendant adduced sufficient evidence to warrant an instruction defining the term “wrongfulness” under § 9 53a–13 (a), as we have elucidated that term. We conclude that the defendant has met this burden. At trial, the defense called several expert witnesses to testify regarding their examinations of the defendant and the conclusions drawn therefrom. Jay Berkowitz, a psychiatrist employed by the department of correction and working at the Bridgeport correctional center (center), testified that he had conducted a ninety minute interview and psychiatric evaluation of the defendant after the defendant’s arrival at the center. Berkowitz testified that the defendant had expressed remorse for killing the victim but felt that it was something that he had to do in order to save other people.

Sue Anne O’Brien, a psychiatric nurse who also worked at the center, testified that she had spoken with the defendant for approximately ninety minutes. O’Brien testified that the defendant believed that he had “saved all of us from this evil thing [that] was occurring,” and she quoted the defendant as stating, “ ‘I saved you. I saved everyone here. I’ve saved the world.’ “ Another expert witness, Leslie Kurt, a forensic psychiatrist, testified extensively with respect to her examination and diagnosis of the defendant, with whom she had met in a series of six interviews for a total of nearly twelve hours. Kurt stated that the defendant believed that the victim had used methamphetamine and hypnosis to gain control over people and had done nothing to prevent the intensely evil crimes of Dirk. According to Kurt, the defendant likened the victim to Sirhan Sirhan, Jim Jones and Charles Manson, and expressed a belief that he had a higher moral duty to stop the victim and Dirk. Kurt described the defendant’s belief in a higher moral duty as something akin to a person believing, during World War II, that he or she had a moral obligation to assassinate Adolf Hitler even though that person understood that this killing would be illegal.

On the basis of this testimony, we conclude that the defendant presented sufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could have found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, due to a mental disease or defect, the defendant misperceived reality and, in acting on the basis of that misperception, did not substantially appreciate that his actions were contrary to societal morality.

Supreme Court of Connecticut, Selection from “State v. Wilson, 242 Conn. 605,” 1997.

On June 29, 2008, Petitioner Chaz K. Bazzle got drunk with his friends. According to Petitioner, he consumed at least three 40–ounce containers of beer in an apartment complex, went to a mall in Columbia, and drank more alcohol. He left the mall and was walking to meet his friend Lakita Butler when he was attacked and stabbed six or seven times.

He ran to Butler’s house, arriving around 11 p.m. Butler testified that Petitioner was “bleeding” and “almost about to pass out” when he arrived. She called 911, and Petitioner was taken to a hospital, where his blood alcohol content was measured at .157, and then again at. 137. At the hospital, Petitioner spoke with Detective Donald Guevara, telling him that he had been attacked by one man and one woman “on the footbridge that goes across Little Patuxent Parkway from the waterfront towards the mall.” Petitioner was asleep in a hospital bed when Kohlya Eggleston, who was also being treated for stab wounds suffered that evening, recognized Petitioner as his attacker. According to Eggleston’s testimony, earlier that evening he had been sitting in a truck in a gas station when a man approached, opened the door, and said, “Get out of the motherfucking car.”

The man then stabbed him multiple times with a weapon before he could exit. Eggleston could not tell what kind of weapon was used because the man had wrapped a shirt around his hand to conceal it. The man had also been wearing a bandana to cover his face, but it slipped down during the encounter, allowing Eggleston to recognize him as Petitioner, whom he already knew as an acquaintance. Asked how certain he was that Petitioner was his attacker, Eggleston testified: “very certain.” Petitioner testified in his own defense, denying that he had attacked Eggleston. He also said that he was unable to recall some of his own behavior on the night he was attacked. He objected to the question about Eggleston’s certainty, but was overruled.

A jury found Petitioner guilty of attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed carjacking, and first-degree assault. Petitioner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying his request for an instruction on voluntary intoxication and admitting Eggleston’s testimony about his certainty. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, and Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, asking: Where, during the same evening that Petitioner was alleged to have committed specific-intent offenses, hospital personnel measured his blood alcohol level at .157 and .137, Petitioner testified that he drank heavily throughout the evening, and a witness described him as “bleeding” and “almost about to pass out,” did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury upon the defense theory of voluntary intoxication?

The court held that, although there was evidence that Petitioner was intoxicated, there was no evidence that his intoxication was so severe that he could not form a specific intent, did not appreciate what he was doing, or was robbed of his mental faculties. Thus, it held that an instruction on voluntary intoxication was not generated by the evidence. Petitioner disagrees, arguing that a voluntary intoxication instruction was relevant and generated by the evidence. The instruction was relevant, he says, because it provides that intoxication can negate the specific intent element of a crime, and his convictions—attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed carjacking, and first-degree assault—each contained a specific intent element.

The instruction was generated by the evidence, he says, because four pieces of evidence show that he was “so intoxicated, at the time of the act, that he was unable to form” a specific intent: (1) his elevated blood alcohol content; (2) his memory loss; (3) the “senseless manner” in which the assault was committed; and (4) witness testimony describing him as “almost about to pass out” on the night of the crime.

The only question is whether the instruction was applicable under the facts of the case. The requested instruction, Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:31.1 provides: You have heard evidence that the defendant acted while intoxicated by [drugs] [alcohol]. Generally, voluntary intoxication is not a defense and does not excuse or justify criminal conduct. However, when charged with an offense requiring a specific intent, the defendant cannot be guilty if [he] [she] was so intoxicated, at the time of the act, that [he] [she] was unable to form the necessary intent. A specific intent is a state of mind in which the defendant intends that [his] [her] act will cause a specific result….In order to convict the defendant, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the degree of the intoxication did not prevent the defendant from acting with that specific intent.

Petitioner contends that four pieces of evidence, viewed together and in the light most favorable to him, meet this low threshold. He argues that his blood alcohol content and memory loss on the night of the crime, combined with Butler’s testimony that he was “almost about to pass out” and the illogical manner in which the assault was committed (asking Eggleston to exit the vehicle and then not giving him the opportunity to do so ), constitute “some evidence” that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that he was so intoxicated that he could not form a criminal intent. Thus, he argues, the trial court invaded the province of the jury by refusing to give a voluntary intoxication instruction.

The State responds that such evidence, at most, only goes to show that Petitioner’s functioning was impaired by alcohol, not that he was incapable of forming an intent. The State cites Lewis, in which Judge Pollitt for the Court of Special Appeals wrote: The single fact that one has consumed what some may consider to be an inordinate amount of alcohol, standing alone, with no evidence as to the [effect] of that alcohol on the defendant, would not permit a jury reasonably to conclude that he had lost control of his mental faculties to such an extent as to render him unable to form the intent[.] * * * There was no attempt in this case to offer expert opinions as to the [effect] on the defendant of the ingestion of those quantities of alcohol…. Without knowing the level of one’s tolerance, no good correlation can be observed between the amount of alcohol consumed and the degree of drunkenness displayed.

As we said in Hook v. State, mere intoxication is insufficient to negate a specific intent: Evidence of drunkenness which falls short of a proven incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime merely establishes that the mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion and does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequence of his act; Beall v. State, 203 Md. 380, 386, 101 A.2d 233, 236 (1953) (“As a defense to intent here the accused must show that he was so intoxicated that he was robbed of his mental faculties. He is criminally responsible as long as he retains control of his mental faculties sufficiently to appreciate what he is doing.”).

A defendant is not entitled to an instruction on voluntary intoxication unless he can point to “some evidence” that “would allow a jury to rationally conclude” that his intoxication made him incapable of “form[ing] the intent necessary to constitute the crime[.]”

Mere drunkenness does not equate to the level of intoxication necessary to generate a jury instruction on intoxication as a defense to a crime.

In this case, the evidence is insufficient to allow a jury to rationally conclude that Petitioner was so severely impaired that he could not form the intent necessary to constitute his crimes. To be sure, Petitioner’s blood alcohol content of .157 was nearly twice the legal driving limit.

Illogical behavior and memory loss are also generally associated with excessive alcohol consumption. Yet Petitioner has not shown that such phenomena, which are undoubtedly “some evidence” that he was drunk, are also “some evidence” that he was unable to form a specific intent. Essentially, all Petitioner has shown is that he was drunk and exhibited the typical characteristics of being drunk. This is not evidence that he was unable to form a specific intent, and is therefore insufficient to raise a jury issue on voluntary intoxication as a defense to a specific intent crime.

Regarding Butler’s testimony that Petitioner was “bleeding” and “almost about to pass out,” we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that those statements, in the context of describing Petitioner’s appearance after having just been stabbed, “plainly appear to refer to [his] injured state.” We do not decide whether, in some circumstances, describing a defendant as about to pass out from alcohol could be sufficient to generate a jury issue on voluntary intoxication. We simply hold that when a person has just been attacked and stabbed, and then walked bleeding to a friend’s house, a general description of him as “bleeding” and “about to pass out,” without more specification, is insufficient to constitute “some evidence” that he was so intoxicated that he could not form a specific intent.

Moreover, some of Petitioner’s actions on the night in question are inconsistent with the intoxication defense. To begin with, when Petitioner was attacked and stabbed after leaving the mall, he was able to recognize the gender of his two attackers, escape by running (not walking) away from them, and then locate Ms. Butler’s house on foot in the dead of night while severely injured. Surely this was no easy task, and his ability to complete it, immediately after having consumed all the alcohol that he claims to have consumed, is flatly inconsistent with his assertion that he was so extremely intoxicated that he was unable to form a specific intent.

Petitioner’s ability to speak intelligibly while allegedly intoxicated also contradicts his intoxication theory. Petitioner’s speech, even after he had consumed all the alcohol that he claims to have consumed, was understandable to both Eggleston and Detective Guevara, as Eggleston was able to repeat Petitioner’s words verbatim at trial, and Guevara testified that Petitioner had explained the details of being robbed by one male and one female on “the footbridge that goes across Little Patuxent Parkway from the waterfront towards the mall.” Such clear, detailed speech is inconsistent with the level of intoxication required to negate a specific intent. Finally, Petitioner’s memory loss was not complete, as he was able to remember being interviewed by police on the night in question. Indeed, his own explanation of his memory loss—”I don’t recall much after I got stabbed”—seems to contradict his assertion that it was the alcohol, not the stabbing, that caused him to forget certain things.

Petitioner was indeed drunk on the night the crimes were committed, but “[g]enerally, voluntary drunkenness is no defense to a criminal charge. . . . The degree of intoxication which must be demonstrated to exonerate a defendant is great.” State v. Gover, 267 Md. 602 (1973). Petitioner simply cannot point to evidence sufficient to satisfy that standard, leaving us with no basis to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give the instruction.

Court of Appeals of Maryland, Selections from “Bazzle v. State, 426 Md. 541,” 2012.