Justice Albert Tomei
Golger was convicted after a jury trial of sexual abuse and assault. He sought to set aside the verdict arguing the court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on intoxication. It was alleged Golger lured the victim, who worked for Golger and his family, as his disabled son’s aide, to his apartment on a ruse and assaulted her. The court noted before a charge was required, there needed to be objective evidence including the number of drinks and the period of time in which they were consumed, and the specific impact the alcohol had on defendant’s behavior. It found while there was evidence Golger appeared intoxicated, there was no evidence on how much or the type of alcohol he consumed. It found, absent such evidence, there was no objective way to determine how intoxicated Golger was or the affect such intoxication had on his ability to form the intent to assault or sexually abuse the victim. The court noted his actions were purposeful and “even calculated in setting up and executing his assault,” concluding no intoxication charge was required. Hence, as Golger failed to establish the evidentiary basis for a jury charge that intoxication may negate the element of intent, he was properly precluded from making the argument to the jury and his motion was denied.
