One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Claimed Blackout: All It Takes for a Voluntary Intoxication Instruction in Kansas

State v. Bobian, No. 127,139, 2025 WL 2426586 (Kan. August 22, 2025). 

Staff Editor Ed Gramling

September 13, 2025

Issue: Is a jury instruction on the voluntary intoxication defense factually appropriate if a defendant only testifies that they consumed an intoxicating substance and were subsequently impaired?

Answer:  Yes.  A request for a voluntary intoxication instruction is factually appropriate if there is evidence of “consumption of an intoxicating substance and consequent impairment.”[1]

Facts: Kamahl Bobian entered his ex-wife’s home, allegedly to retrieve clothes, and stabbed her to death.  Bobian then bathed the blood off his two children, drove the body miles away, and concealed it.  Bobian was later charged with premeditated first-degree murder, among other offenses.

At trial, Bobian requested a voluntary intoxication instruction to negate premeditated first-degree murder’s intent element.  To justify the requested instruction, Bobian testified that he had been drinking heavily with friends for many hours before the killing and told detectives that he was “black[ed] out” before and after the stabbing.[2]  The district court denied the requested instruction, reasoning that Bobian was still able to undertake many “complicated feats,” such as bathing his children, driving a car, and concealing the body.[3]  The jury later convicted Bobian of premeditated first-degree murder and other offenses.

Discussion:  On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court clarified that a voluntary intoxication instruction is “factually appropriate” when the defendant presents evidence of both consumption of an intoxicating substance and consequent impairment.[4]  Thus, the Court found that the district court overstepped by evaluating the merits of the evidence regarding Bobian’s impairment, rather than simply determining whether “the minimum evidence necessary to require the instruction was present.”[5]

The Court emphasized that Bobian testifying that he had consumed alcohol and was subsequently blacked out was sufficient evidence of impairment to justify the instruction because “a jury could theoretically (although not realistically . . . ) have concluded that Bobian lacked the capacity to form the necessary intent at the time of [his ex-wife’s] death.”[6]

Key Authorities:

Kan Stat. Ann. § 21-5108(c); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5205(b); State v. Green, 469 P.3d 1228, 1243–44 (Kan. 2020).

[1] State v. Bobian, No. 127,139, 2025 WL 2426586, at *5 (Kan. August 22, 2025) (emphasis supplied).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at *6.

[4] Id. at *5.

[5] Id. at *6.

[6] Id.