Power Naps Boost Brainpower

For those of you who have read my book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare with the extensive information on the great importance of sleep this report will be no surprise at all. It is always nice to have a confirmation of the information though. I thought it quite interesting to note that these researchers found that a nap can dramatically boost and restore your brainpower, refresh the mind, improve one’s capacity to learn, and make you smarter while to the contrary staying up late to cram for a test can decrease ability to learn by almost 40%! The more hours we stay awake the more sluggish our minds become. This makes it easy to understand why antidepressants, which produce so much insomnia and other sleep disorders, prevent you from learning and produce so much memory loss! Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness www.drugawareness.org & www.ssristories.drugawareness.orgAuthor: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World & Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant! http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/02/22/power-naps-boost-brainpower/11615.html Power Naps Boost Brainpower By RICK NAUERT PHD Senior News Editor Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on February 22, 2010 New research suggests an hour’s nap can dramatically boost and restore your brainpower. Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley discovered a nap can not only refresh the mind, but make you smarter. Conversely, the more hours we spend awake, the more sluggish our minds become, according to the findings. The results support previous data from the same research team that pulling an all-nighter – a common practice at college during midterms and finals –- decreases the ability to cram in new facts by nearly 40 percent, due to a shutdown of brain regions during sleep deprivation. “Sleep not only rights the wrong of prolonged wakefulness but, at a neurocognitive level, it moves you beyond where you were before you took a nap,” said Matthew Walker, an assistant professor of psychology at UC Berkeley and the lead investigator of these studies. In the recent UC Berkeley sleep study, 39 healthy young adults were divided into two groups – nap and no-nap. At noon, all the participants were subjected to a rigorous learning task intended to tax the hippocampus, a region of the brain that helps store fact-based memories. Both groups performed at comparable levels. At 2 p.m., the nap group took a 90-minute siesta while the no-nap group stayed awake. Later that day, at 6 p.m., participants performed a new round of learning exercises. Those who remained awake throughout the day became worse at learning. In contrast, those who napped did markedly better and actually improved in their capacity to learn. These findings reinforce the researchers’ hypothesis that sleep is needed to clear the brain’s short-term memory storage and make room for new information, said Walker, who presented his findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego, Calif. Since 2007, Walker and other sleep researchers have established that fact-based memories are temporarily stored in the hippocampus before being sent to the brain’s prefrontal cortex, which may have more storage space. “It’s as though the e-mail inbox in your hippocampus is full and, until you sleep and clear out those fact e-mails, you’re not going to receive any more mail. It’s just going to bounce until you sleep and move it into another folder,” Walker said. In the latest study, Walker and his team have broken new ground in discovering that this memory-refreshing process occurs when nappers are engaged in a specific stage of sleep. Electroencephalogram tests, which measure electrical activity in the brain, indicated that this refreshing of memory capacity is related to Stage 2 non-REM sleep, which takes place between deep sleep (non-REM) and the dream state known as Rapid Eye Movement (REM). Previously, the purpose of this stage was unclear, but the new results offer evidence as to why humans spend at least half their sleeping hours in Stage 2, non-REM, Walker said. “I can’t imagine Mother Nature would have us spend 50 percent of the night going from one sleep stage to another for no reason,” Walker said. “Sleep is sophisticated. It acts locally to give us what we need.” Walker and his team will go on to investigate whether the reduction of sleep experienced by people as they get older is related to the documented decrease in our ability to learn as we age. Finding that link may be helpful in understanding such neurodegenerative conditions as Alzheimer’s disease, Walker said. Source: University of California, Berkeley

471 total views, no views today

LEXAPRO & ALCOHOL & MEDICAL MARIJUANA: Murder: Woman Stabs Man To Death: CA

Paragraph eleven reads:  “During the interview, Rothwell
at times explained she was really drunk during the incident. However, she also
denied feeling “buzzed,” explaining she could “see straight” and was not falling
down drunk. She also admitted she drinks “a little bit” and takes medical
marijuana everyday. Rothwell said she takes Lexapro for anxiety and
depression and that she had taken her medication the night of the
incident.
Rothwell told police she has anger problems and when her
father died two years ago it “kinda pushed” her over the edge. She admitted to

stabbing a friend Alex Montes in the arm approximately a year and one-half
before when they were drunk and playing around. Rothwell explained she was not
mad at Montes, but he had said  ‘you won’t [stab me],’  so she did.
Rothwell agreed there were similarities about the two incidents with Rivas and
Montes because each man had dared her to stab him.”

SSRI Stories
Note:  The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause

alcohol abuse. Also, the liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and
the alcohol simultaneously, thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and
the antidepressant
in the human body.

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100422068

PEOPLE v. ROTHWELL

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
SAMANTHA ELIZABETH ROTHWELL, Defendant and
Appellant.

No. G040557.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division Three.

Filed April 22, 2010.

Christine Vento,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General,
Jeffrey J. Koch and Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
REPORTS

OPINION

O’LEARY, Acting P.
J.

Samantha Elizabeth Rothwell appeals from a judgment after a jury
convicted her of second degree murder and found true she personally used a
deadly or dangerous weapon, a knife, in the commission of the crime. Rothwell
argues her federal constitutional rights were violated when the trial court
refused to instruct the jury to consider evidence of her intoxication in
determining whether she acted with conscious disregard for human life. We
disagree and affirm the judgment.

FACTS[ 1 ]

One afternoon, a group of 10 to 15
friends rented a room at the Hotel Huntington Beach to celebrate Nicole Alcala’s
birthday. Rothwell, one of the invitees, and her friend, Kristina Torres,
arrived around 8:30 p.m. Marc Bellatiere and his girlfriend, Jennifer Mulcahy,
were at the party when Rothwell and Torres arrived. Mulcahy also invited her
brother Ryan Soto. Eighteen-year-old Walter Rivas was also at the
party.

Sometime in the evening, the group went to the beach to meet with
friends. Rothwell chose to stay at the hotel. When the group returned sometime
after midnight, Soto recalled that Rothwell “didn’t seem like herself.” While
some people started getting ready for bed, Bellatiere went outside to the fifth
floor stairwell landing to smoke a cigarette. Mulcahy, Torres, Rothwell, and
Rivas joined him. For the first five to 10 minutes, the mood was fine. However,
the atmosphere changed when Rivas began talking about seeing God the last time
he was in Huntington Beach. Rothwell became upset and ordered Rivas to not “talk
about God. I don’t like hearing about that stuff.” Rivas was taken aback by
Rothwell’s response and asked her why. She replied, “It’s because I’m the
devil,” and demanded Rivas “stop talking about it.” Rivas responded, “I’ll talk
about whatever I want.” Rothwell threatened, “If you don’t stop talking, shut
up, I’ll stab you.” No one in the group took Rothwell’s threat seriously. Rivas
said jokingly, “If you are going to do it, do it,” and continued to talk about
God. Rivas was not threatening, did not make any aggressive moves toward
Rothwell, and made no physical contact with her.

Rothwell walked to the
hotel room and flung the door open. Mulcahy followed and tried to calm her down.
Rivas stayed on the landing talking with Torres. When Rothwell and Mulcahy
entered the hotel room, it was dark and everyone was sleeping. Rothwell went to

the side of the bed where her belongings were located and began digging through
her purse while saying, “@#$% this guy . . . he can’t be talking to me like
this.” Mulcahy tried to grab Rothwell and calm her down, but Rothwell pulled
away and left the room.

Rothwell returned to the stairwell and headed
straight for Rivas. Rothwell swung her closed fist toward Rivas’s neck. Rivas
was substantially taller than Rothwell and struggled against her, but she
stabbed him in the jugular vein and in the back. When Rothwell took her arm
away, Rivas was bleeding profusely and said, “That @#$% fucking stabbed me.
That @#$% fucking stabbed me.” Bellatiere and Torres walked Rivas back to the
hotel room where they had him lay on the bathroom floor.

Rothwell
returned to the room and quickly gathered her things to leave. Soto asked, “Why
did you do it? What happened?” and Rothwell responded, “It wasn’t a big fucking
deal, get over it,” or “Get the @#$% over it. @#$% you,” and left the room
passing a bloody Rivas. Rothwell left bloody fingerprints on the stairwell
railing as she left. Someone called 911.

Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto
left the hotel scared and panicked while Alcala and Torres tended to Rivas. The
group drove down the street and parked. Bellatiere left because he was the only
one in the group who was over 21 years old and had brought alcohol for the
party, which included underage party guests. Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto
called Mulchay’s mother and asked what they should do. As a result of that
conversation, about one hour later, Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto returned to

the hotel. Bellatiere and Mulcahy spoke to police who were at the
hotel.

Rivas died at the hospital. An autopsy determined he bled to death
as a result of an L-shaped stab wound in the left jugular vein of the neck.
Rivas had a blood alcohol level of .09% before his death. He would have needed
four and one-half to five drinks to reach that level.

Police officers
arrested Rothwell the next day at her apartment in Valencia. Officer Michael
Reilly executed a search warrant and found her purse and backpack. In a small
pocket of her backpack, he found a folding knife with dried blood on it. Dried
blood was also found on her backpack, tennis shoes, and pants. Inside Rothwell’s
purse, Reilly found a McDonald’s receipt from earlier that morning at 2:39 a.m.
for a double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets.

Later that day, officers
interviewed Rothwell at the Huntington Beach Police Department. After waiving
her Miranda[ 2 ] rights, Rothwell told police she consumed
three beers and two or three shots of alcohol and vomited while the others were
at the beach. Rothwell explained that while having a cigarette on the fire
escape, she had a conversation with Mulcahy about how she used to cut herself,
which sparked an argument with Rivas. She recalled Rivas said he “found God in
Huntington Beach,” but said it did not make her upset and she was joking when
she said the devil visited her. She explained Rivas had been drinking and yelled
at her to stab him. In response, she walked back to the hotel room and got her
knife. She denied saying she was going to stab Rivas. When she went back to the
stairwell, Rothwell alleged Rivas was taunting her to “stab me like that.”
Rothwell explained the two were wrestling and she was trying to get away when
she swung three times at his stomach and back and inadvertently stabbed him in
the neck. Rothwell explained Torres was screaming at her to stop, but she was
“drunk” and “pissed off” because Rivas had yelled at her and was grabbing her by
the arms. She told police that after she stabbed Rivas, he said, “You got me,”
and “[She] killed him.” Rothwell admitted seeing Rivas laying on the floor
bleeding profusely but gathered her belongings and left the hotel room because
she was terrified and realized he might die. Rothwell recalled saying, “tell
everybody to go to hell” to Mulcahy’s friend Marshall who had followed her down
the stairs. Rothwell explained that when she left the hotel she drove to

McDonald’s and purchased a double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets. Rothwell
explained she then went home and waited for the police to come and arrest
her.

During the interview, Rothwell at times explained she was really
drunk during the incident. However, she also denied feeling “buzzed,” explaining
she could “see straight” and was not falling down drunk. She also admitted she
drinks “a little bit” and takes medical marijuana everyday. Rothwell said she
takes Lexapro for anxiety and depression and that she had taken her medication
the night of the incident. Rothwell told police she has anger problems and when
her father died two years ago it “kinda pushed” her over the edge. She admitted
to stabbing a friend Alex Montes in the arm approximately a year and one-half
before when they were drunk and playing around. Rothwell explained she was not
mad at Montes, but he had said “you won’t [stab me],” so she did. Rothwell
agreed there were similarities about the two incidents with Rivas and Montes
because each man had dared her to stab him.

Rothwell cried while she told
police she did not mean to kill Rivas. When she heard about Rivas’s death she
“felt sick” and felt bad for his family. Rothwell did not know what made her do
it and admitted she is “not right.”

An indictment charged Rothwell with

murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).[ 3 ]
The indictment alleged she personally used a knife, a dangerous and deadly
weapon, in the commission of the crime, pursuant to section 12022, subdivision
(b)(1).

At trial, the prosecutor offered Montes’s testimony. Montes
testified he was a good friend of Rothwell, had known her for three years, and
would see her everyday. Montes explained a conversation he had with Rothwell in
which she told him that she did not believe in God because her father told her
to say her prayers and when Rothwell woke up in the morning, her father was
dead. He testified Rothwell would get upset and very emotional if the topic of
God was discussed. He recalled she would say, “Don’t ever bring God up in my
house again. I don’t believe it.” Despite her anger about any discussion of God,
he never saw Rothwell pick up a weapon or heard her say she would stab someone
for talking about God. Montes recalled a night when he and Rothwell were
“playing around” and Rothwell said, “if you make me mad enough I’ll stab you.”
Not taking Rothwell seriously, Montes explained he said jokingly, “you won’t
stab me” and stuck his arm out. In response, she pushed the knife into his arm,
drawing blood. She apologized the next day, and Montes still considers her a
close friend.

Mulcahy also testified for the prosecution. Mulcahy was a
friend of Rothwell from high school and stayed in touch weekly. Mulcahy
testified Rothwell appeared to be fine when she entered the party. She explained
it was the first time Rivas and Rothwell had met. She believed Rothwell was not
religious but was also not an atheist. She also knew Rothwell carried a knife
for protection and could get very angry. Mulcahy testified everyone drank
throughout the night.

The prosecutor also offered the testimony of a
forensic scientist, Annette McCall. McCall testified blood samples gathered from
the scene compared with known samples of Rivas’s DNA revealed Rivas could “not
be eliminated as a source.” She also testified blood samples gathered from
Rothwell’s backpack and knife compared with known samples of Rivas’s DNA
revealed Rivas could “not be eliminated as a source.”

Rothwell offered
Torres’s testimony. Torres explained she and Rothwell were best friends. Torres
said they “probably smoked marijuana” before going to the hotel and she saw
Rothwell smoking marijuana throughout the night. Torres described Rivas as
always having a smile on his face. According to Torres, Rivas and Rothwell were
talking about religion on the landing and Rivas said he saw God on the beach.
Rothwell said, “I’m the devil.” Torres explained Rivas was calm and Rothwell was
yelling and then left briefly. Torres recalled that when Rothwell returned, it
appeared as though she was dancing with Rivas. She eventually realized it looked
confrontational and Rivas was trying to push Rothwell away. Torres testified she
never saw a knife. She saw the blood pouring from Rivas’s neck but did not think
he would die. Torres helped Rivas until the paramedics arrived. She remembered
Rivas saying, “Tell my mother I love her.” She stated Rothwell gathered her
belongings and left the hotel room. Torres thought she heard Rothwell say upon
her departure, “It’s no big deal, fucking deal with it.” Torres said Rivas had
not been confrontational or argumentative with Rothwell that night or in the
past. However, Torres explained Rothwell becomes confrontational whenever the
subject of God comes up. Torres also explained that if someone tells Rothwell
not to do something, she will do it. Furthermore, if someone dares Rothwell to

do something, she will. Torres testified she witnessed the stabbing of Montes by
Rothwell, which was the result of a dare. Torres also testified “`[Rothwell]
goes from zero to maniac . . . if you push her button.'”

Torres admitted
lying to the police to protect Rothwell. She tried to protect Rothwell because
she knew what Rothwell did was wrong and it was no accident. Torres explained
she called Christian Robinson, Rothwell’s boyfriend, and told him that Rothwell
had stabbed someone. Two days later, Torres felt she could no longer protect
Rothwell and typed a statement to police that she both faxed and hand delivered.
In the statement, she explained Rothwell had stabbed Rivas. She also reported
Rothwell said to Rivas, “Oh yeah, oh, you don’t think I won’t. You think I
won’t.”

The trial court instructed the jury on first degree murder and
second degree murder­both on the implied malice and no premeditation
theories­and involuntary manslaughter. Rothwell’s counsel requested CALCRIM
No. 3426, the voluntary intoxication instruction. The prosecutor objected based
on Rothwell’s statement she was not buzzed. The trial court expressed a
preference for CALCRIM No. 625, a voluntary intoxication instruction that
pertains directly to homicide. Defense counsel requested CALCRIM No. 625 be
modified to add malice aforethought, which includes implied malice. The
requested instruction (the Special Instruction) provided: “You may consider
evidence, if any, of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication only in a limited
way. You may consider that evidence only in deciding whether the defendant acted
with an intent to kill, or the defendant acted with deliberation and
premeditation, or acted with malice aforethought. [¶] A person is

voluntarily intoxicated if he or she becomes intoxicated by willingly
using any intoxicating drug, drink, or other substance knowing that it could
produce an intoxicating effect, or willingly assuming the risk of that effect.
[¶] You may not consider evidence of voluntary intoxication for any other
purpose.” The court declined to instruct the jury with the Special Instruction.
Instead, the court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 625 without the “or
acted with malice aforethought” language.

The jury convicted Rothwell of
second degree murder and found true the allegations she personally used a deadly
or dangerous weapon, a knife. The trial court sentenced her to prison for a
total term of 16 years to life.

DISCUSSION

Due Process and Fair Trial

Rothwell contends her federal constitutional rights to due process and a
fair trial were violated when the trial court, relying on section 22, refused to
instruct the jury it may consider her voluntary intoxication to negate implied
malice. Specifically, she argues section 22, subdivision (b), is
unconstitutional because it was designed to keep out relevant, exculpatory
evidence and is not a redefinition of the mental state element of the offense.
We disagree.

Section 22, most recently amended in 1995, provides: “(a) No
act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less
criminal by reason of his or her having been in that condition. Evidence of
voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any
mental states for the crimes charged, including, but not limited to, purpose,
intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation, or malice aforethought, with
which the accused committed the act. [¶] (b) Evidence of voluntary intoxication
is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually
formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the
defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice
aforethought. [¶] (c) Voluntary intoxication includes the voluntary ingestion,
injection, or taking by any other means of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or
other substance.” (Italics added.)

The Legislature’s 1995 amendment to

section 22 inserted the word “express” before the word “malice” in subdivision
(b). The 1995 amendment was in direct response to People v. Whitfield
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 437 (Whitfield). In Whitfield, the California
Supreme Court held evidence of a defendant’s voluntary intoxication was
admissible to negate implied as well as express malice. (Id. at
451.)

The history of the 1995 amendment to section 22 was most recently
addressed in People v. Turk (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1361 (Turk). In

Turk, the court concluded, “The legislative history of the amendment
unequivocally indicates that the Legislature intended to legislatively supersede
Whitfield, and make voluntary intoxication inadmissible to negate implied
malice in cases in which a defendant is charged with murder.” (Turk,
supra,
164 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1374-1375.)

Rothwell argues section 22
is unconstitutional after the 1995 amendment because “it created a rule that
keeps out relevant exculpatory evidence by in effect precluding the jury from
considering evidence that could disprove the `conscious disregard for human
life’ element of implied malice second degree murder.” Rothwell relies on

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) 518 U.S. 37 (Egelhoff), and Justice
Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, to support her contention.

In
Egelhoff, a plurality of the court upheld the constitutionality of a
Montana statute providing voluntary intoxication “`may not be taken into
consideration in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element
of [the] offense.'” (Egelhoff, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 57.) The plurality
found no due process violation because the right to have a jury consider
intoxication evidence was not a “fundamental principle of justice.” In
concurrence, Justice Ginsberg drew a distinction between rules designed to keep
out relevant, exculpatory evidence that might negate an essential element of a
crime and violate due process, and rules that redefine the mental state element
of the offense. (Ibid.) Justice Ginsburg viewed the Montana statute as a
redefinition of the offense’s required mental state and therefore excluding
evidence of voluntary intoxication was constitutional. (Id. at pp.
57-59.)

“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, `the holding of the
Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the
judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . .'” (Marks v. United States

(1977) 430 U.S. 188, 193.) Assuming Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence controls, as
Rothwell urges this court to do, we nonetheless conclude section 22 does not
violate due process.

In People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th
1292, 1300-1301 (Timms ), the court addressed the identical issue we have
here. The court explained section 22 did not violate a defendant’s due process
rights because section 22, subdivision (b), did not belong to the “prohibited
category of evidentiary rules designed to exclude relevant exculpatory
evidence.” (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) The court
reasoned, “The absence of implied malice from the exceptions listed in
subdivision (b) is itself a policy statement that murder under an implied malice
theory comes within the general rule of subdivision (a) such that voluntary
intoxication can serve no defensive purpose. In other words, section 22,
subdivision (b)[,] is not `merely an evidentiary prescription’; rather, it
`embodies a legislative judgment regarding the circumstances under which
individuals may be held criminally responsible for their actions.’ [Citation.]
In short, voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to proof of the mental state of
implied malice or conscious disregard. Therefore, it does not lessen the
prosecution’s burden of proof or prevent a defendant from presenting all
relevant defensive evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1300-1301)

The

Timms court found illuminating the fact section 22 does not appear in the
Evidence Code, it appears in the Penal Code. (Timms, supra, 151
Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) Additionally, the court acknowledged the California
Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, which
rejected a due process challenge to section 22 in the context of the general
intent crime of arson. (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p.
1300.)

With respect to Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, the court stated
that assuming the concurrence controls, “Justice Ginsberg also stated: `Defining

mens rea to eliminate the exculpatory value of voluntary intoxication
does not offend a “fundamental principle of justice,” given the lengthy
common-law tradition, and the adherence of a significant minority of the States
to that position today. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Under this rational, the 1995
amendment permissibly could preclude consideration of voluntary intoxication to
negate implied malice and the notion of conscious disregard. Like the Montana
statute, the California Legislature could also exclude evidence of voluntary
intoxication in determination of the requisite mental state.” (Timms,
supra,
151 Cal.App.4th p. 1300.) Therefore, the court concluded section 22
did not infringe defendant’s constitutional rights.

Rothwell also argues
the trial court’s application of section 22 violated her constitutional right to

due process and a fair trial because, “[t]he level of a defendant’s intoxication
is undeniably relevant evidence on the issue of whether he or she consciously
disregarded a risk to human life.” We find People v. Martin (2000) 78
Cal.App.4th 1107 (Martin), instructive.

In Martin, supra,
78 Cal.App.4th at page 1113, the court rejected this constitutional challenge to
section 22. The court explained, “Section 22 states the basic principle of law
recognized in California that a criminal act is not rendered less criminal
because it is committed by a person in a state of voluntary intoxication.” The
court stated section 22 “is closely analogous to [the Legislature’s] abrogation
of the defense of diminished capacity . . . . The 1995 amendment to section 22
results from a legislative determination that, for reasons of public policy,
evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate culpability shall be strictly
limited. We find nothing in the enactment that deprives a defendant of the
ability to present a defense or relieves the People of their burden to prove
every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Martin,
supra,
78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117.)

We find the courts’ reasoning in

Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, and Martin, supra, 78
Cal.App.4th 1107, persuasive. Thus, we conclude the trial court’s refusal to
instruct the jury with Rothwell’s Special Instruction did not violate her
constitutional rights. The trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM
No. 625.

Equal Protection

In its respondent’s brief,
the Attorney General suggests Rothwell may be asserting an equal protection
claim. In her reply brief, Rothwell raises the equal protection argument for the
first time. We need not consider this argument, because it was made for the
first time in reply without any showing of good cause for failing to raise it in
the opening brief. (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales &

Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 894-895, fn. 10.) Additionally,
to the extent Rothwell attempts to raise an equal protection claim, her failure
to properly raise the issue and support it with adequate argument and citation
to authority waived the issues on appeal. (See, e.g., California Dept. of
Corrections v. State Personnel Bd.
(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1601, 1619.) In
any event, her claim fails on the merits. (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1302-1303.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.

WE CONCUR.

MOORE, J.

IKOLA, J.
1. `In accord
with the usual rules of appellate review, we state the facts in the light most
favorable to the judgment. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199,
1206.)
2. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3. All further
statutory references are to the Penal Code

557 total views, 1 views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & ALCOHOL: Assault: Man Attacks Kidney Transplant Patient: UK

Paragraph nine reads: “Steve Collins, defending, said his client had
expressed “considerable remorse” and added: “He accepts it was completely out
of order. Alcohol played its part and, perhaps, anti-depressants.”

SSRI Stories Note: The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause alcohol abuse. Also, the
liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol simultaneously,
thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and the antidepressant in the
human body.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13103

Man banned from Thatcham for attacking kidney transplant patient
Sun, April 25 2010

By John Garvey, Reporter
Email: newburytoday@newburynews.co.uk
Phone: 01635 564632

A MAN who savagely attacked a frail, Thatcham kidney transplant patient
has been handed a jail term and banned from the town.

Forty-one-year-old Anthony Coles battered his terrified girlfriend Donna
Morrison as she cowered in the bedroom of her Thatcham home, demanding
hundreds of pounds in cash and threatening to stab her pet dog, Newbury
magistrates heard.

But they suspended the prison sentence last Thursday, April 22, ruling
that Mr Coles would not get the help he needed in jail.

Lauren Murphy, prosecuting, said: “The victim, who was subsequently rated
as being a high risk domestic violence victim, is a petite lady who has
health problems and has had two kidney transplants.

“The pair had been in a six-year relationship and he had recently moved
into her home. One evening he came in and had been drinking. She made his tea
but he didn’t want any. He became insulting, saying she wasn’t really ill
and that he didn’t want to be in the relationship any more.

“He asked for £10, which she gave him and she went to bed at 7.30pm, not
wanting to have an argument.”

Mr Coles went out and, upon his return, the court heard, began making
increasing demands for cash until he wanted £500.

Miss Murphy went on: “When she said she wouldn’t be able to get the money
he knocked her to the floor, grabbed her hair and dragged her along the
bedroom floor saying that, if she didn’t get him the money he would take her
dog Barney to the woods and stab him.

“She was petrified and afraid that if she called out she would suffer
serious harm. She told him she would get his money and he warned that if she
called the police he would kill her sister and make her life a misery.”

Miss Morrison made a show of going to the Thatcham Co-Op with her bank
card but then called police, the court heard.

Miss Murphy said: “Officers found her tearful and trembling and she kept
repeating: ‘He is going to kill me.’ She showed officers a large clump of
hair that had ben torn out by being dragged. Mr Coles told officers that he
had just flipped.”

Mr Coles, who now lives in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, admitted assault
causing actual bodily harm on March 4 this year.

Steve Collins, defending, said his client had expressed “considerable
remorse” and added: “He accepts it was completely out of order. Alcohol played
its part and, perhaps, anti-depressants.

“He had no money because his money was paid into her bank account – hence,
he wanted money to get away.”

Mr Collins asked magistrates to read pre-sentence reports and alluded to
on-going problems his client had with regard to relationships, adding: “He
knows you may send him to prison today and he has no problem with that. But
one day he is going to have to address these problems and he won’t be able
to do that in jail.”

Magistrates imposed a four-month jail term, but agreed to suspend it for
two years and ordered Mr Coles to undertake a domestic violence programme.

He was also banned from entering Thatcham for two years and ordered to pay
Miss Morrison £100 compensation.

920 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & ALCOHOL: Chain Saw Attack: Ireland

Paragraph 10 reads: “Garda Noonan agreed with Mr Orange that Mulligan had
been on antidepressants at the time and the medication did not mix well
with the alcohol he had taken that night.”

SSRI Stories Note: The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause alcohol abuse. Also, the
liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol simultaneously,
thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and the antidepressant in the
human body.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/man-angry-at-juvenile-delinquency-chases-
youths-with-chainsaw-454896.html

Man angry at juvenile delinquency chases youths with chainsaw
22/04/2010 – 14:29:48

A man who was so frustrated with juvenile delinquency in his neighbourhood
that he tried to scare off some youths with a chainsaw has been ordered to
carry out work in the community in lieu of a jail sentence.

Patrick Mulligan (aged 50), a bus driver for children with special needs,
was still holding the running chainsaw in his driveway when gardaí arrived
and he waved it in the direction of garda Colin Noonan and two of his
colleagues.

Mulligan of Whitechurch Avenue, Ballyboden, pleaded guilty at Dublin
Circuit Criminal Court to possession of the chainsaw under the Firearms and
Offensive Weapons Act at his home on October 4, 2008. He had no previous
convictions.

Garda Noonan told Ms Una Tighe BL, prosecuting, that it took a short time
to convince Mulligan to put the tool down while his wife stood in the couple
’s doorway in a distressed state.

He said it was clear that the accused had been drinking. Mulligan told
gardaí that he had number of problems with some of the people in his
neighbourhood and was concerned for his property and the bus he drove for work.

He told gardaí later that his wife could not walk down their street
without “being hassled”. He said some youths had gathered outside his house that
night and were interfering with his bus and he had brought out the
chainsaw as tactic to scare them off.

He said he was shocked when gardaí arrived and that was why it took him
some time to put the tool down.

Garda Noonan agreed with Mr Garnet Orange BL, defending, that his client
was very apologetic to the gardaí during interview and co-operated with
their investigation.

He accepted that Mulligan’s wife had called the gardaí because she was
concerned for her husband before he further accepted that it had not been an
incident of “domestic violence”.

Garda Noonan agreed with Mr Orange that Mulligan had been on
antidepressants at the time and the medication did not mix well with the alcohol he had
taken that night.

Mr Orange told garda Noonan that his client wanted to express his
apologies for “any action that he engaged in that might have been perceived as a
threat to you and or your colleagues”.

He told judge Katherine Delahunt that there had been a problem with “
juvenile delinquency” in the area, involving “keying of cars and damage to both
vehicles and property”.

He said his client had been concerned for his and his family’s personal
safety and that of his property but added that Mulligan had “completely lost
the head and acted in an irrational manner”.

Mulligan had €500 in court to offer the gardaí as a token of his remorse
which garda Noonan said he would pass onto the Garda Benevolent Fund.

Judge Delahunt ordered Mulligan to carry out 100 hours community service
in lieu of a two-year sentence after telling him that had not been for the “
very fair evidence” of garda Noonan, and the manner in which he had met the
case, he would be going to jail.

“Garda Noonan has underplayed what must have been a very terrifying
experience for both him and his colleagues,” Judge Delahunt said before she noted
that she had also taken into account that Mulligan was 50 years old and
had not come to garda attention.

She said she was also taking into consideration the fact he may lose his
job due to his conviction and said that in itself would be “a very
significant penalty to suffer”.

716 total views, 1 views today

ANTIDEPRESSANTS & ALCOHOL: Murder Attempt: Man Stabs Police Officer: Malta

Paragraph seven reads: “Supt Martin Sammut, who was an inspector at the
time, testified that in his statement to the police, Mr Attard acknowledged
stabbing the officer and expressed regret. Mr Attard also said that he was
drunk – even though he was not supposed to drink because he was on
anti-depressants – and that he had no intention of hurting the constable. At the
time, Mr Attard said that he was very nervous, as his underage daughter was
pregnant.”

SSRI Stories Note: The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause alcohol abuse. Also, the
liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol

http://www.di-ve.com/Default.aspx?ID=72&Action=1&NewsId=71642&newscategory=3
4

by John Paul Cordina – editorial@di-ve.com

Court — 19 April 2010 — 12:45CEST

A man charged with the attempted murder of a policeman told police that he
was drunk and on medication when the incident occurred, and did not intend
to hurt the officer, a jury heard on Monday.

Kevin Attard, a 39-year-old Kalkara resident, started undergoing trial by
jury after being charged with the attempted murder of PC Jonathan Farrugia
in the small hours of April 26, 2003, at the St Julians police station.

According to the prosecution, Mr Attard reacted violently when he was
refused entry at the Fuego nightclub in Paceville at around 0320h. Security
guards called the police for assistance, but Mr Attard punched PC Andrew St
John when he intervened, leading to his arrest.

He was taken to the police station, where PC Farrugia was on his own since
his colleagues were out on assignment.

Mr Attard asked for permission to smoke, permission that was granted on
condition that he remained at the station, but he nevertheless attempted to
leave twice. On the second attempt, PC Farrugia ordered Mr Attard to get
back inside, leading to an altercation in which the accused brought out a
3-inch pen knife and stabbed the police officer in the belly.

Two police officers entered the station soon after, and apprehended Mr
Attard. Mr Farrugia was taken to St Luke’s Hospital, where his injury was
certified not to be life-threatening, and was released on the following day.

Supt Martin Sammut, who was an inspector at the time, testified that in
his statement to the police, Mr Attard acknowledged stabbing the officer and
expressed regret. Mr Attard also said that he was drunk – even though he
was not supposed to drink because he was on anti-depressants – and that he
had no intention of hurting the constable. At the time, Mr Attard said that
he was very nervous, as his underage daughter was pregnant.

The accused insisted that PC Farrugia was not alone in the station at the
time, and said that he had just purchased the knife in his home town.

Mr Farrugia testified that when the accused arrived at the station, he
appeared calm, but suddenly attacked him. He said that he was not aware that
he had been stabbed, and thought the accused had grabbed a set of keys and
punched him.

He said that he started shouting for help, and a police officer soon
arrived to help him escort Mr Attard to the station cell. It was this police
officer who informed him that he had been attacked with a knife, the constable
said in Court.

Mr Attard was also charged with slightly injuring PC St John, damaging PC
Farrugia’s uniform, the unlawful possession of a knife and with assaulting
police officers with the aim of preventing them from carrying out their
duty.

The uniform and the knife were presented as evidence to the jury, as was a
blood-stained shirt.

Lawyer Lara Lanfranco is prosecuting on behalf of the Attorney General’s
Office, while lawyers José Herrera and Veronique Dalli are representing Mr
Attard.

The trial is being presided over by Judge Joseph Galea Debono.

Email to a friend

680 total views, no views today

DEPRESSION MED: Assault: England

Paragraph four reads: “Michael Clare, defending, said Roberts was sorry
for what had happened, that he suffered from depression, was on medication
and could not remember anything when he drank alcohol.”

SSRI Stories Note: The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause alcohol abuse. Also, the
liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol simultaneously,
thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and the antidepressant in the
human body.

http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/Diss-pub-attacker-escapes-jail.6233505.jp

Diss pub attacker escapes jail term
Published Date: 16 April 2010

By Unknown

A 24-year-old Diss man has been given a suspended prison sentence and
ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work following an assault at a pub.

At a hearing at Norwich Crown Court on Wednesday, Paul Roberts, of Paine
Close, admitted assaulting 18-year-old William Webster – knocking out two of
his front teeth at The Crown pub, St Nicholas Street, in the early hours
of Christmas Day last year.

The court was told that Roberts had been given a community order for
affray in October last year, following an incident at The Greyhound pub, in
which the victim suffered a deep cut on his nose.

Michael Clare, defending, said Roberts was sorry for what had happened,
that he suffered from depression, was on medication and could not remember
anything when he drank alcohol.

Malcolm Robins, prosecuting, said Roberts and Mr Webster knew each other
and Mr Webster accepted he may have said something which could have upset
Roberts, who then elbowed him in his mouth.

But he said Mr Webster did not retaliate and other people in the pub were
trying to calm Roberts down.

Roberts was given a 30-week prison sentence, suspended for two years and a
one-year supervision order, under which he must attend an anger management
programme for up to six months.

Roberts was also ordered to do 100 hours of unpaid work for the community
and pay £1,000 compensation to Mr Webster.

Judge Alasdair Darroch told Roberts: “I think the public will be better
protected if you go on a course rather than me sending you to prison.”

Page 1 of 1
Last Updated: 16 April 2010 3:55 PM
Source: Diss Express
Location: Diss

451 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT: City Councilman Candidate’s Wife Attacked Him: Texas

Paragraphs three through five read:  “She told of being
diagnosed with cancer shortly after their marriage in 1997, of suffering
depression after the treatment and of
medication
that magnified her issues.

“I have a
mean-spirited side and I took it out on him,” she told the gathering of about
100. “All those months of treatment and I was fed up. And
he was the one I could beat the hell out of.”

“But when the husband
made it a two-way fight before turning to leave the home, she said, she called
police. She ditched the prescription medication and they have long
since gotten through their issues
, she said, adding that David McNeely
is today a candidate worthy of the voters’ faith.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/042810dnmetgarcouncil.2e165f3.html

Garland council candidate’s wife defends him despite domestic violence
charge

03:11 PM CDT on Tuesday, April 27, 2010
By RAY LESZCYNSKI / The Dallas Morning News
rleszcynski@dallasnews.com

A wife‘s story of ovarian cancer and domestic
violence added yet another layer of passion to Garland’s lone contested city

council race Monday night.

Sharp questions, finger-pointing between
incumbent John Willis and challenger David McNeely and a moderator calling for
order had already made for a lively forum. Then, as parties were dismissed,
Donna McNeely stepped to the podium at Shiloh Worship Center.

She told
of being diagnosed with cancer shortly after their marriage in 1997, of
suffering depression after the treatment and of medication that magnified her
issues.

“I have a mean-spirited side and I took it out on him,” she told
the gathering of about 100. “All those months of treatment and I was fed up. And
he was the one I could beat the hell out of.”

But when the husband made
it a two-way fight before turning to leave the home, she said, she called
police. She ditched the prescription medication and they have long since gotten
through their issues, she said, adding that David McNeely is today a candidate
worthy of the voters’ faith.

During the forum, the candidate had ducked
questions about the 1999 assault charge that was dismissed after he served a
year’s probation, restating that it was long ago and not relevant. He said later
that the decision to make a public statement was Donna’s.

517 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & ALCOHOL: Suicide: British Judo Star Tipped for Olympics: UK

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL!!!! [AM I SHOUTING? YES I AM SHOUTING!!! AND I HAVE BEEN SHOUTING THAT ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL FOR TWO DECADES!] LET ME REPEAT THAT: ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL!!!!!

Antidepressants cause this alcohol craving in several ways:

– by dropping the blood sugar
– by producing mania, one type of mania is known as “dipsomania” which is described as an “uncontrollable urge to drink alcohol”
– by increasing serotonin which has been shown in medical research to cause cravings for alcohol (see SSRIs & Alcoho at www.drugawareness.org)
________________________________

Paragraph four reads: “But an inquest heard he had secretly been battling depression after splitting with the mother of his daughter – and in the early hours of New Year’s Day he was found dead in his home in Mold, North Wales.”

Paragraph thirteen reads: “When their relationship broke down, he moved back into his family home where he began a course of anti-depressant drugs.”

Paragraph twenty reads: “Toxicology results showed he was more than three times the drink-drive limit. . . ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267219/Robert-Gallagher-UK-Olympic-judo-hopeful-hangs-black-belt.html

Monday, Apr 19 2010 3PM

British judo star tipped for Olympic glory hangs himself with own black belt after breaking up with girlfriend
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:39 PM on 19th April 2010

A British judo star tipped for success at the 2012 Olympics hanged himself with his own black belt after struggling to get over splitting from his girlfriend, an inquest heard.

Firefighter Robert ‘Robbie’ Gallagher, 23, was so talented in martial arts he was listed as one of the amateur sportsmen expected to shine during the London Olympics.

He was known across the Judo world for fighting in the 66kg weight category and was one of Britain’s top judo players in 2005, when he was in the British junior squad.

But an inquest heard he had secretly been battling depression after splitting with the mother of his daughter – and in the early hours of New Year’s Day he was found dead in his home in Mold, North Wales.

His father Robert Gallagher Snr, said: ‘We as a family are so saddened by Robbie’s untimely death and we miss him greatly.

‘He was into his judo and was a contender for the 2012 Olympic games and was a retained firefighter, hoping to have a future full-time in firefighting.

‘He had been a mischievous happy person and enjoyed his life. He wanted to achieve the very best.’

Mr Gallagher started judo when he was five before later taking up the sport at the highest level.

He was British judo champion three times and represented North Wales Fire and Rescue Service at the 2008 World Firefighting Games at the Echo Arena, Liverpool.

A British Judo Association spokeswoman said after his death: ‘British judo is extremely saddened by the loss of Robbie Gallagher.

‘A talented judo player, Robbie will be missed by players and coaches alike.’

An inquest heard last Friday how Robbie had been with girlfriend Sophie Bell-Halfpenny for four years, and together they shared a home and daughter Evie.

When their relationship broke down, he moved back into his family home where he began a course of anti-depressant drugs.

Miss Bell-Halfpenny told the hearing her former partner had threatened suicide on several occasions, explaining: ‘He once phoned me at 4am to say he had taken an overdose of sleeping tablets.

‘Then he came up to my house and and was waving his judo belts at me saying he was going to take his own life.’

The inquest in Mold heard how the judo ace had gone to a pub on New Year’s Eve to see in 2010 with some friends but had then gone back home to hang himself.

His father said he did not realise his son had returned home early until he went to have a cigarette outside shortly after midnight, and heard a noise from their garage.

He stepped inside and made the horrific discovery of his son hanging by his own judo belt.

A post-mortem examination revealed the father-of-one had died from asphyxia caused by hanging.

Toxicology results showed he was more than three times the drink-drive limit. He did not leave a note.

Recording a verdict of suicide, North East Wales coroner John Hughes, told the family: ‘I want to tell you how desperately sad I was to hear of your misfortune, especially as it was someone as young as your boy.’

After hearing of his death last January, a spokesman for his former school, Alun School, said: ‘We are very sad to hear this news.

‘He was a very outgoing character who was well liked by all the staff. He always had a big smile on his face.

‘We remember him fondly as a very fit lad, he could turn his hand to anything, but judo was his sport.

‘Robbie was one of the most gifted athletes we had at the school. He excelled at judo and represented Wales and the UK.

‘He was an excellent judo player and at one time he was in the top group for his age.’

642 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & PAIN MED: War Vet Kills Self In Front of VA Medical Center: OH

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy: If this young man was wanting to make a statement by taking his life I cannot think of a better place to make such a statement than in front of the VA Medical Center! Why? Because they have been one of the very worst at pushing these kinds of meds. They hand them out like candy and have for decades! I am sure he was frustrated with the treatment he was getting from the VA as they continue to push these drugs as the only “answer” when they DO NOT WORK and only make the initial problem worse!

Paragraph five reads:  “Scott Labensky, whose son lived with Huff, agreed. He said the veteran was injured by a ground blast while serving inIraq and received ongoing treatment for a back injury and depression.”

SSRI Stories Note:  The most common treatment for depression is an antidepressant, usually a newer antidepressant such as SSRIs or SNRIs.  The suicide rate among soldiers is now higher than the combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FDA Black Box warning for antidepressants and suicidality covers those aged 24 and under. The majority of the soldiers in Iraq/Afghan are 20 to 24 years of age.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/veteran-commits-suicide-infrontof-dayton-vacenter-656012.html

Did war vet kill self to make a statement?

Man had been in VA emergency room earlier in the morning.

By Lucas Sullivan and Margo Rutledge Kissell
Staff Writers Updated 11:23 PM Friday, April 16, 2010

DAYTON  Jesse Charles Huff walked up to the Veterans Affairs Department’s Medical Center on Friday morning wearing U.S. Army fatigues and battling pain from his Iraq war wounds and a recent bout with depression.

The 27-year-old Dayton man had entered the center’s emergency room about 1 a.m. Friday and requested some sort of treatment. But Huff did not get that treatment, police said, and about 5:45 a.m. he reappeared at the center’s entrance, put a military-style rifle to his head and twice pulled the trigger.

Huff fell near the foot of a Civil War statue, his blood covering portions ofthe front steps.

Police would not specify what treatment Huff sought and why he did not receive it. Medical Center spokeswoman Donna Simmons declined to answer questions about Huff’s treatment, citing privacy laws. But police believe Huff killed himself to make a statement.

Scott Labensky, whose son lived with Huff, agreed. He said the veteran was injured by a ground blast while serving in Iraq and received ongoing treatment for a back injury and depression.

“He never got adequate care from the VA he was trying to get,” Labensky said. “I believe he (killed himself) to bring attention to that fact. I saw him two days ago. He was really hurting.”

Simmons said Huff received care at the center since August 2008 and his care was being handled by a case manager.

The suicide rate among 18- to 29-year-old men who have left the military has gone up significantly, the government said in January.

The rate for those veterans rose 26 percent from 2005 to 2007, according to data released by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The military community also has struggled with an increase in suicides, with the Army seeing a record number last year. Last May, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base focused on suicide recognition and prevention after four apparent suicides involving base personnel within six months.

Huff arrived early Friday in a cream-colored van police found parked about 200 yards from a south entrance of the medical center. The van contained some U.S. Army clothing, a carton of Newport cigarettes and a prescription bottle of Oxycodone with Huff’s name on the side.

Oxycodone is often used to treat severe pain.

As a precaution, bomb squad technicians blew apart a backpack Huff carried before committing suicide.

674 total views, 1 views today

PAXIL: Acquitted of DUI: Involuntary Intoxication: Virginia

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy
(www.drugawareness.org):

Because the package insert for Paxil
warns that this antidepressant does produce “alcohol cravings” and we know how
common it is for mania to be induced by SSRIs, with one type of mania being
“Dipsomania” – an overwhelming compulsion to drink alcohol” – this
information needs to be spread far and wide ASAP! Patients are NOT warned
of this when they are given this drug! Few are even given the package insert
which is a “failure to warn” on the part of both the drug maker and the
pharmacist. How many DUIs are being caused by the SSRI antidepressants? We know
that DUIs in middle aged women, the main users of SSRIs, have DOUBLED over
a recent 10 year period. Is there a connection? As a society we need to know.
Where is MADD on this issue?
___________________________________________
The Fifth case from the end reads:  “Defendant was on Paxil, an
anti-depressant drug, and had a few drinks after playing golf. He was arrested
and charged with DUI after weaving through traffic.  He was “obviously
impaired” according to his lawyer.  ‘The worst I’d ever seen in 25 years’.”

“An expert testified that Paxil, taken with alcohol, has an “additive
effect” in some people.  The Defendant was never told about this.  The
Court acquitted the Defendant because to self-administer an intoxicant, one must
be aware that they are consuming an intoxicant.

http://virginiadui.poweradvocates.com/dui_defenses.html

4.
Involuntary Intoxication .  Commonwealth v. Moore, February, 2003 (Fairfax
Co. GDC).

Defendant was on Paxil, an anti-depressant drug, and had a few
drinks after playing golf.  He was arrested and charged with DUI after
weaving through traffic.  He was “obviously impaired” according to his
lawyer.  “The worst I’d ever seen in 25 years.”

An expert testified
that Paxil, taken with alcohol, has an “additive effect” in some people.

The Defendant was never told about this.  The Court acquitted the Defendant
because to self-administer an intoxicant, one must be aware that they are
consuming an intoxicant.

589 total views, no views today