People v. Givan
California Court of Appeals
233 Cal. App. 4th 335 (2015)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
One morning around 8:00 a.m., DeMarcus Monte Givan (defendant) ran a red light while driving over the speed limit and struck another car. Police officers at the scene noticed he had red, watery eyes and a faint odor of alcohol and was not rational or coherent while talking to officers. Givan was taken to the hospital, and a blood test reported his blood alcohol level at 0.17 percent. Givan was charged with driving under the influence and causing bodily injury, a general-intent crime. At trial, Givan’s defense was that he did not believe he was intoxicated when he drove his car, testifying that he drank alcohol for about two to three hours the night before the accident, including cocktails made by mixing cognac with energy drinks. Givan claimed he stopped drinking by 10:00 p.m. the night before the accident and introduced an expert who testified that consuming an energy drink before alcohol can delay the effects of alcohol on the drinker and that the energy drink acts as a stimulant, counteracting the depressant effect of alcohol and reducing the drinker’s awareness about how the alcohol is affecting him. The jury found Givan guilty, and he appealed, arguing that the judge should have instructed the jury on the mistake-of-fact defense based on Givan’s mistaken belief about his intoxication level.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kane, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
