JUSTICE ROVIRA
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Michael DelGuidice (the defendant) appeals a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree murder.1 We affirm the conviction.
On September 7, 1977, the defendant left an Aurora bar where he had been drinking. He walked past an apartment house and saw a motorcycle parked in a fenced area. He took the motorcycle and pushed it into the street. The defendant had been observed by a bystander, who alerted residents of the apartment house, including the victim in this case. The victim and several other persons pursued the defendant and overtook him. A confrontation occurred, during which the defendant killed the victim with a knife.
The defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.2 The jury was instructed on that offense as well as the included offenses of [43]*43second-degree murder, manslaughter,3 and criminally negligent homicide.4
This appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the second-degree murder statute is constitutionally distinguishable from the manslaughter statute; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication was available only to the charge of first-degree murder; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a defense request that a tape recording of a statement made by the defendant be played at trial, in its entirety, for the purpose of rehabilitating the defendant’s testimony.
I.
The defendant contends that his conviction under the second-degree murder statute violates his right to equal protection of the law because that statute is indistinguishable from the manslaughter statute. We disagree.
The pertinent distinction between the two statutes is that between the mens rea elements “knowingly” and “recklessly.” These terms are defined, respectively, in sections 18-1-501(6) and 18-1-501(8), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), as follows:
“A person acts ‘knowingly’ . . . with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts' ‘knowingly’ . . . with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.”
“A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.”
The defendant relies on the rule established in People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 281, 534 P.2d 316, 318 (1975), that “where two statutes with unequal penalties proscribe the same act, the defendant convicted under the harsher statute is denied equal protection of the law.” However, if the two statutes in question require different mens rea elements for conviction, there is no equal protection violation under Calvaresi, supra. People v. Reynolds, 195 Colo. 386, 575 P.2d 1286 (1978).
The distinction between the mens rea elements “knowingly” and “recklessly” mirrors the distinction between practically certain of result on the one hand, and probability or contingency of result on the other. People v. Mingo, 196 Colo. 315, 584 P.2d 632 (1978); Model Penal Code § 2.02, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955), at 125. This distinction is one of broad degree, and its articulation is fully satisfactory only when grounded in specific facts. However, we cannot say that the distinction is not “sufficiently apparent to be intelligently and uniformly applied” [44]*44when examined from the perspective of likely impact on a jury in a criminal trial. Calvaresi, supra, 188 Colo. at 282, 534 P.2d at 318; People v. Favors, 192 Colo. 136, 556 P.2d 72 (1976).
In the case before us, eyewitnesses to the homicide testified that the defendant and the victim engaged in a face-to-face confrontation and that the defendant made a sudden move toward the victim, stabbing with his knife directly into the victim’s heart. The jury could properly conclude on the basis of this evidence that the defendant was aware that the death of the victim was “more than merely a probable result” of his actions. That level of awareness is sufficient to establish the mens rea element of second-degree murder and to distinguish that crime from manslaughter. Mingo, supra, 196 Colo. at_, 584 P.2d at 633.
We therefore hold that the second-degree murder statute, section 18-3-103(l)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), is constitutionally distinguishable from the manslaughter statute, section 18-3-104(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), within the rule of Calvaresi, supra.
n.
The second issue raised in this appeal concerns the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication. The trial court instructed the jury that the defense was available only to the charge of first-degree murder. The defendant challenges this instruction as a denial of due process of law.5
The defendant points out that evidence of his voluntary intoxication was presented to the jury but that the trial court’s instruction precluded the jury from considering that evidence as a defense to the charge of second-degree murder and, specifically, on the issue of whether the defendant acted “knowingly” in causing the death of the victim. The defendant concludes that the instruction lessens the People’s burden of proving him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of every element of the crime charged and therefore constitutes a denial of due process of law and cites In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970, and People v. Kanan, 186 Colo. 255, 526 P.2d 1339 (1974), in support of his argument.6
We note initially that the trial court’s instruction conforms with applicable provisions of the Colorado Criminal Code. Second-degree murder, because it contains the mens rea element “knowingly,” is a general intent crime. Section 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8); People v. Washburn, 197 Colo. 419,_, 593 P.2d 962, 965 (1979). However, [45]*45section 18-1-804(1), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8), limits the defense of voluntary intoxication to the negation of mens rea in specific intent crimes. Finally, section 18-3-103(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), provides specifically that “[diminished responsibility due . . . to self-induced intoxication is not a defense to murder in the second degree.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JUSTICE ROVIRA
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Michael DelGuidice (the defendant) appeals a jury verdict convicting him of second-degree murder.1 We affirm the conviction.
On September 7, 1977, the defendant left an Aurora bar where he had been drinking. He walked past an apartment house and saw a motorcycle parked in a fenced area. He took the motorcycle and pushed it into the street. The defendant had been observed by a bystander, who alerted residents of the apartment house, including the victim in this case. The victim and several other persons pursued the defendant and overtook him. A confrontation occurred, during which the defendant killed the victim with a knife.
The defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.2 The jury was instructed on that offense as well as the included offenses of [43]*43second-degree murder, manslaughter,3 and criminally negligent homicide.4
This appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether the second-degree murder statute is constitutionally distinguishable from the manslaughter statute; (2) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication was available only to the charge of first-degree murder; and (3) whether the trial court erred in denying a defense request that a tape recording of a statement made by the defendant be played at trial, in its entirety, for the purpose of rehabilitating the defendant’s testimony.
I.
The defendant contends that his conviction under the second-degree murder statute violates his right to equal protection of the law because that statute is indistinguishable from the manslaughter statute. We disagree.
The pertinent distinction between the two statutes is that between the mens rea elements “knowingly” and “recklessly.” These terms are defined, respectively, in sections 18-1-501(6) and 18-1-501(8), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), as follows:
“A person acts ‘knowingly’ . . . with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts' ‘knowingly’ . . . with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result.”
“A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.”
The defendant relies on the rule established in People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 281, 534 P.2d 316, 318 (1975), that “where two statutes with unequal penalties proscribe the same act, the defendant convicted under the harsher statute is denied equal protection of the law.” However, if the two statutes in question require different mens rea elements for conviction, there is no equal protection violation under Calvaresi, supra. People v. Reynolds, 195 Colo. 386, 575 P.2d 1286 (1978).
The distinction between the mens rea elements “knowingly” and “recklessly” mirrors the distinction between practically certain of result on the one hand, and probability or contingency of result on the other. People v. Mingo, 196 Colo. 315, 584 P.2d 632 (1978); Model Penal Code § 2.02, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1955), at 125. This distinction is one of broad degree, and its articulation is fully satisfactory only when grounded in specific facts. However, we cannot say that the distinction is not “sufficiently apparent to be intelligently and uniformly applied” [44]*44when examined from the perspective of likely impact on a jury in a criminal trial. Calvaresi, supra, 188 Colo. at 282, 534 P.2d at 318; People v. Favors, 192 Colo. 136, 556 P.2d 72 (1976).
In the case before us, eyewitnesses to the homicide testified that the defendant and the victim engaged in a face-to-face confrontation and that the defendant made a sudden move toward the victim, stabbing with his knife directly into the victim’s heart. The jury could properly conclude on the basis of this evidence that the defendant was aware that the death of the victim was “more than merely a probable result” of his actions. That level of awareness is sufficient to establish the mens rea element of second-degree murder and to distinguish that crime from manslaughter. Mingo, supra, 196 Colo. at_, 584 P.2d at 633.
We therefore hold that the second-degree murder statute, section 18-3-103(l)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), is constitutionally distinguishable from the manslaughter statute, section 18-3-104(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), within the rule of Calvaresi, supra.
n.
The second issue raised in this appeal concerns the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication. The trial court instructed the jury that the defense was available only to the charge of first-degree murder. The defendant challenges this instruction as a denial of due process of law.5
The defendant points out that evidence of his voluntary intoxication was presented to the jury but that the trial court’s instruction precluded the jury from considering that evidence as a defense to the charge of second-degree murder and, specifically, on the issue of whether the defendant acted “knowingly” in causing the death of the victim. The defendant concludes that the instruction lessens the People’s burden of proving him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of every element of the crime charged and therefore constitutes a denial of due process of law and cites In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970, and People v. Kanan, 186 Colo. 255, 526 P.2d 1339 (1974), in support of his argument.6
We note initially that the trial court’s instruction conforms with applicable provisions of the Colorado Criminal Code. Second-degree murder, because it contains the mens rea element “knowingly,” is a general intent crime. Section 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8); People v. Washburn, 197 Colo. 419,_, 593 P.2d 962, 965 (1979). However, [45]*45section 18-1-804(1), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8), limits the defense of voluntary intoxication to the negation of mens rea in specific intent crimes. Finally, section 18-3-103(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), provides specifically that “[diminished responsibility due . . . to self-induced intoxication is not a defense to murder in the second degree.”
The trial court’s instruction also conforms with the long-standing common law rule that “[voluntary drunkenness is no legal excuse for a crime perpetrated under the influence of intoxicating liquor unless its effect is to destroy the ability of the accused to form a specific intent, the existence of which is an element of the offense charged.” Smith v. People, 120 Colo. 39, 47, 206 P.2d 826, 830 (1949). See also Dolan v. People, 168 Colo. 19, 449 P.2d 828 (1969); Watkins v. People, 158 Colo. 485, 408 P.2d 425 (1965); Brennan v. People, 37 Colo. 256, 86 P. 79 (1906). This rule is followed in the federal courts and is embodied in the statutes of at least twenty states. Kane v. United States, 399 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 393 U.S. 1057, 89 S.Ct. 698 (1969); Model Penal Code § 2.08, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959), at 2.
Our research indicates that the precise issue raised in this appeal is one of first impression in this state. Authorities such as In re Winship and People v. Kanan, supra, do not decide the issue, but rather reaffirm the principle that the prosecution must adhere to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than a lesser standard, in overcoming the presumption of innocence of the accused in a criminal case.
This court has indicated that evidence of voluntary intoxication is competent, as a matter of due process, to disprove specific intent when that mental state is an element of a crime charged. People v. Cornelison, 192 Colo. 337, 559 P.2d 1102 (1977). The holding in Cornelison, however, is fully consistent with the common law and statutory rule challenged in this case. Cornelison applies only to specific intent crimes and does not mandate a departure from the rule that evidence of voluntary intoxication is incompetent to disprove general rather than specific intent.
The drafters of the Model Penal Code do not address the issue as one of due process analysis. It is true that the official draft of the code makes evidence of voluntary intoxication competent to disprove the mental state “knowingly,” excluding such evidence only as to the culpable mental states of recklessness and criminal negligence. However, the Comments to the code indicate that the drafters viewed the question as controlled by policy considerations rather than by the strictures of the due process clause. Model Penal Code § 2.08, Comment (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959), at 8-9.
We approach this issue mindful that the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions impose on us the duty to make hard choices between competing interests.
[46]*46It must be noted that In re Winship, supra, establishes the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with specific reference to the context of historical rules of evidence:
“[gjuilt in a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and by evidence confined to that which long experience in the common-law tradition, to some extent embodied in the Constitution, has crystallized into rules of evidence consistent with that standard.” 397 U.S. at 362, 90 S.Ct. at 1071, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d at 374.
The Colorado common law and statutory rule which makes evidence of voluntary intoxication incompetent to disprove general intent when that mental state is an element of a criminal charge is supported by weighty policy choices about the extent to which drunkenness can excuse criminal responsibility. The rule is one of long standing and, in our opinion, represents the judgment of the people of this state, speaking through their legislature, as to the extent to which voluntary intoxication may be a defense in homicide cases. This is clearly within the competence of the legislature. The principle established in In re Winship, supra, cannot be syllogistically applied in a manner which abrogates the policy choices inherent in the rule. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that it could consider evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication only on the charge of first-degree murder.
III.
The defendant’s third argument is that the trial court erred in denying his request that an entire tape recording of a statement made by him after his arrest be played at trial for the purpose of rehabilitation of testimony. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request.
The defendant took the stand and stated on direct examination that the victim had struck him immediately prior to the stabbing. On cross-examination, the defendant stated that certain scrape marks on his face had been caused by the blows struck by the victim. The prosecutor impeached the defendant’s testimony about the cause of the scrape marks by referring to a portion of a statement made by the defendant to Detective Aaro after the arrest, to the effect that the scrape marks had been caused by a third party after the stabbing. On redirect examination, the defendant’s counsel requested that a tape recording of that statement be played for the jury in its entirety, arguing that the recording would rehabilitate the defendant’s direct testimony. The prosecutor objected, and the request was denied. However, the prosecutor stipulated that he would not object to the recalling of Detective Aaro to testify as to the defendant’s statement about the blows struck by the victim. The detective was recalled and testified that the defendant had stated that he had been struck by the victim. The trial court also indicated that the defendant could be further examined by his counsel about his statement to the detective. However, [47]*47defense counsel chose not to exercise this opportunity.
The defendant is correct in his assertion that evidence of his prior consistent statement was admissible for the purpose of rehabilitating his direct testimony after that testimony had been impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. Coates v. People, 106 Colo. 483, 106 P.2d 354 (1940); People v. Fletcher, 37 Colo. App. 173, 546 P.2d 980 (1975). Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). The trial court complied with this rule by giving defense counsel a full opportunity, exercised only in part, to introduce evidence of the prior consistent statement through the testimony of the defendant and Detective Aaro.
Flowever, the defendant is incorrect in contending that the entire tape recording of his statement should have been admitted under the rule providing limited admissibility for a witness’ prior consistent statements. The defendant made no showing that the recorded statement, other than the portion about which Detective Aaro was allowed to testify, was relevant to rebut the prior inconsistent statement used by the prosecution for impeachment purposes. The defendant does not argue that the detective’s testimony was insufficient to place the relevant portions of the recorded material before the jury.
“[Tjhere is no rule which permits a party to introduce all portions of a document merely because the opponent has employed some portion of it to impeach a witness .... The ‘rule of completeness,’ which does permit the further use of the document to explain the portion already in evidence as fully as the document may allow, does not extend to portions which are irrelevant to the initial use.”
Camps v. New York City Transit Authority, 261 F.2d 320, 322 (2d Cir. 1958). See also United States v. Littwin, 338 F.2d 141 (6th Cir. 1964); McCune v. People, 179 Colo. 262, 499 P.2d 1184 (1972); Gallegos v. People, 157 Colo. 484, 403 P.2d 864 (1965); E. Cleary, McCormick’s Handbook on the Law of Evidence § 56 at 131 (2d ed. 1972).
We have considered all other arguments presented by the defendant and find them to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
JUSTICE ERICKSON, JUSTICE DUBOFSKY and JUSTICE LOHR dissent.