DEFENSE OF INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION - BURDEN OF PROOF
It is the burden of the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did know that his/her acts/omissions were wrong, was able to distinguish right from wrong with respect to his/her acts/omissions, and understood the nature and consequences of his/her acts/omissions at the time of the commission of the acts/omissions that constitute the crime. If you find that the State has failed to sustain that burden, then the defendant must be found not guilty.
This instruction places the burden of proof upon the State. It should be clearly understood, however, that the defense of involuntary intoxication is a defense. The defendant must come forward with evidence concerning involuntary intoxication, unless the evidence of the prosecution has raised the issue. If the defendant fails to come forward with evidence of involuntary intoxication or fails as a matter of law to come forward with sufficient evidence, the issue of involuntary intoxication is not raised in the trial and the trial judge should not instruct on involuntary intoxication. If the defendant presents sufficient evidence to raise the issue of involuntary intoxication, or if the evidence of the prosecution raises the issue of involuntary intoxication, the trial judge should instruct the jury on involuntary intoxication because the trial judge has a duty to instruct on the defendant's theory of the case.
Where evidence of intoxication has been introduced, the defendant must produce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the intoxication in order to invoke the defense of voluntary intoxication. Wooldridge v. State, 801 P.2d 729, 734 (Okl. Cr. 1990); Grayson v. State, 687 P.2d 747, 749 (Okl. Cr. 1984).
No instructions on the defendant's burden to come forward with evidence, or on whether the defendant has presented sufficient evidence, are presented because these are questions of trial procedure and of law, which are beyond the legitimate concern of the jury.