Andrade v. State, 483 P.2d 208 (Nev. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Andrade v. State, 483 P.2d 208 (Nev. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …oluntary intoxication, though not an excuse for crime, may be considered in determining intent. at p. 208 ✓
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Palmer (Markiece) v. State (nev, 2018-01-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Palmer (Markiece) v. State (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
Nev. · 2018 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
oluntary intoxication, though not an excuse for crime, may be considered in determining intent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alcaraz v. Williams
D. Nev. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See ECF No. 12-22 at 16-19.) 1 Second, regarding his trial counsel’s alleged failed to present evidence of his impaired 2 condition, it is true that Nevada law allows “voluntary intoxication . . . [to] be considered in 3 determining intent.” Andrade v. State, 87 Nev. 144, 145 , 483 P.2d 208, 208 (1971); see also Nev. 4 Rev.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JOSEPH ANDRADE, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent
6340.
Nevada Supreme Court.
Mar 26, 1971.
483 P.2d 208
Robert G. Legakes, Public Defender, and Morgan D. Harris, Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant., Robert List, Attorney General, Roy A. Woof ter, District Attorney, and George D. Frame, Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 62%
Citer courts: Nevada Supreme Court (2)

OPINION

Per Curiam:

A jury convicted Andrade of the crime of forgery, NRS 205.090, one element of which is the specific intent to defraud, prejudice or damage another. His appellate claim is that he could not have possessed the specific intent required by statute[*145] since he was intoxicated. Of course, voluntary intoxication, though not an excuse for crime, may be considered in determining intent, NRS 193.220, and the court so instructed the jury. We assume that the jury did so. King v. State, 80 Nev. 269, 392 P.2d 310 (1964). In any event there is substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Andrade’s intoxication was not so gross as to preclude his intention to defraud. King v. State, supra.

Affirmed.