Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant may

Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant may not be used to negative the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense. However, evidence of self- induced intoxication of the defendant may be used to prove or negative conduct or to prove state of mind sufficient to establish an element of an offense. “Intoxication” means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances, including alcohol, into the body. “Self-induced intoxication” means intoxication caused by substances, including alcohol, which the defendant knowingly introduces into his/her body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he/she knows or ought to know. Commentary The intoxication defense statute, HRS § 702-230, was amended in 1986. HRS § 702-230, as amended, "prohibits a defendant who willingly becomes intoxicated and then commits a crime from using that self-induced intoxication as a defense. The use of such intoxication remains permissible for the limited purposes of proving or negating conduct or proving state of mind sufficient to establish an element of an offense." Supplemental Commentary to HRS § 702-230 (1986); see also State v. Freitas, 62 Haw. 17, 608 P.2d 408 (1980) (self-induced intoxication is not to be considered a substantial factor in determining legal responsibility, since mental disability excusing criminal responsibility must be the product of circumstances beyond the defendant's control). In State v. Souza, 72 Haw. 246, 813 P.2d 1384 (1991), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of HRS § 702-230 (1986) and an instruction based on the statute. The statute -- and the instruction given -- were declared constitutional. See also State v. Birdsall, 88 Hawai`i 1, 960 P.2d 729 (1998) (reaffirming Souza decision that HRS § 702-230 is constitutional). In State v. Tyrrell, 60 Haw. 17, 26 n.4, 586 P.2d 1028, 1034 n.4 (1978), the court ruled that "the better practice" under the then current statute was to refrain from using the term "defense" in instructing the jury with respect to intoxication. In State v. Garringer, 80 Hawai`i 327, 909 P.2d 1142 (1996), the supreme court remanded the Rule 40 petition for a hearing on whether Defendant’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation as to a possible trial defense of pathological intoxication based on mental illness induced or exacerbated by chronic use of "ice" or crystal methamphetamine.