## Facts

- Walter Stephen Scott attended a party where guests drank from a communal red punch bowl that was repeatedly refilled.
- After a brief absence by Scott’s brother, multiple guests who had been drinking punch began acting bizarrely; some vomited and made hallucinatory statements.
- Scott appeared physically impaired, with unusually dilated eyes and poor coordination, and a report suggested someone may have added a substance to the punch.
- Later that night, Scott went into the street and attempted to take or drive two separate automobiles.
- Scott was charged with attempted robbery and two counts of attempted unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Pen. Code § 664; Veh. Code § 10851).
- After a court trial on the preliminary hearing transcript, the trial court dismissed the attempted robbery count and convicted Scott on both attempted vehicle-taking counts.
- Sanity proceedings were suspended under an agreement, probation was granted, and Scott later withdrew his insanity plea.
- Scott appealed, arguing the evidence did not support a finding that he formed the specific intent required for attempted Veh. Code § 10851 because he was involuntarily intoxicated and delusional.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Scott formed the specific intent to temporarily deprive each owner of possession of a vehicle for attempted Veh. Code § 10851.
2. Whether evidence of involuntary intoxication and hallucinations required reversal because it negated Scott’s ability to form the requisite specific intent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Scott had the specific intent to temporarily deprive the owners of their vehicles.
- The court concluded involuntary intoxication and a delusional state did not compel a finding that Scott lacked specific intent; the trier of fact could infer intent from Scott’s purposeful conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Attempted unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851; Pen. Code § 664) requires proof of specific intent to temporarily deprive the owner of possession.
- Involuntary intoxication is relevant to whether the defendant actually formed the required mental state, but it does not negate specific intent as a matter of law.
- Specific intent may be inferred from the defendant’s actions and surrounding circumstances, including coordinated efforts directed at taking or operating vehicles.
- On appeal, intent findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; the reviewing court does not reweigh credibility or competing inferences and must view the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.

## Conclusion

The convictions were upheld because the trial court could reasonably infer from Scott’s conduct that he intended to take or drive the vehicles and temporarily deprive their owners of possession, even if his intoxication was involuntary and accompanied by hallucinations.


People v. Scott, 146 Cal. App. 3d 823, 194 Cal. Rptr. 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)