14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1984 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Crittlegreen2 sentences1984Defendant also argues that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the intoxication *140 defense by using the capacity standard, 3 a standard which was rejected by this Court in People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367 ; 212 NW2d 196 (1973). 1984Defendant also argues that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the intoxication *140 defense by using the capacity standard, 3 a standard which was rejected by this Court in People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367 ; 212 NW2d 196 (1973). | 2 | 9 |
People v. Walkergreen2 sentences1976The question of retroactive application to these cases concerns part V of the Crittle opinion, 390 Mich at 373-374 , wherein this Court opined that "trial judges would do well to follow Justice Cooley’s language” in People v Walker, 38 Mich 156, 158 (1878), in instructions on intoxication rather than the capacity standard of Roberts . 1975The Supreme Court in People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367, 373 ; 212 NW2d 196 (1973), stated the applicable test to determine whether the accused has the specific requisite intent by quoting from Justice Cooley’s opinion in People v Walker, 38 Mich 156, 158 (1878): " 'While it is true that drunkenness cannot excuse a crime, it is equally true that when a certain intent is a necessary element in a crime, the crime cannot have been committed when the intent did not exist * * * if the defendant, for any reason whatever, indulged no such intent, the crime cannot have been committed.’ ” The Court went on | 2 | 2 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences1976As was stated by the Court of Appeals in footnote 6 of People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 746 ; 223 NW2d 330 (1974): "There would appear to be a real question of whether Crittle , to the extent that it appears to repudiate the capacity standard, should be given retrospective application. 1976As was stated by the Court of Appeals in footnote 6 of People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 746 ; 223 NW2d 330 (1974): "There would appear to be a real question of whether Crittle , to the extent that it appears to repudiate the capacity standard, should be given retrospective application. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Richgreen2 sentences1980In People v Rich, 397 Mich 399 ; 245 NW2d 24 *351 (1976), the Court applied prospectively only the rule of People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367 ; 212 NW2d 196 (1973), which overruled the capacity standard of intoxication in specific intent crimes which had been firmly established for many years. 1980In People v Rich, 397 Mich 399 ; 245 NW2d 24 *351 (1976), the Court applied prospectively only the rule of People v Crittle, 390 Mich 367 ; 212 NW2d 196 (1973), which overruled the capacity standard of intoxication in specific intent crimes which had been firmly established for many years. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Grimgreen1 sentence1976See People v Grim, supra, at 146 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gilbert Johnsongreen2 sentences1975In this regard, People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 743-744 ; 223 NW2d 330, 333 (1974), represents the conclusion of a panel of this Court that: "While the Cooley standard (the intent did not exist) is different than the capacity standard (the intent could not exist), this is not to say that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two when both are found in the same charge.” (Emphasis in original.) This belief is difficult to square with the presumption expressed in People v Gilbert Johnson, 52 Mich App 560, 563 ; 218 NW2d 65, 67 (1974): "given erroneous and correct instructions, the jury 1975In this regard, People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 743-744 ; 223 NW2d 330, 333 (1974), represents the conclusion of a panel of this Court that: "While the Cooley standard (the intent did not exist) is different than the capacity standard (the intent could not exist), this is not to say that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the two when both are found in the same charge.” (Emphasis in original.) This belief is difficult to square with the presumption expressed in People v Gilbert Johnson, 52 Mich App 560, 563 ; 218 NW2d 65, 67 (1974): "given erroneous and correct instructions, the jury | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hearn
green
2 sentences1976In People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468, 470 ; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), an intoxication instruction using the capacity standard was said to have "completely and properly” instructed the jury and "fully protected” the defendant. 1976In People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468, 470 ; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), an intoxication instruction using the capacity standard was said to have "completely and properly” instructed the jury and "fully protected” the defendant. | 3 | 1975–1976 |
People v. Parsons
green
2 sentences1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). 1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). | 2 | 1976–1978 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences1976People v Watson, 59 Mich App 299 ; 229 NW2d 424 (1975), found instructions and closing arguments that emphasized the capacity standard to be erroneous. 1976People v Watson, 59 Mich App 299 ; 229 NW2d 424 (1975), found instructions and closing arguments that emphasized the capacity standard to be erroneous. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Ormsby
neutral
2 sentences1975These rules are expressed in such language as: " '[T]oo drunk to be capable of forming the statutory intent’ (People v Haley, 48 Mich 495, 497 ; 12 NW 671 [1882]); "So intoxicated that they 'did not know what they were doing’ (People v Hearn, 354 Mich 568, 470 [sic]; 93 NW2d 302 [1958]); " 'So intoxicated * * * that he would be incapable of forming an intent * * * and did not know what he was doing’ (People v Stram, 40 Mich App 249, 252 ; 198 NW2d 753 [1972]); or " '[S]o far overcome by the intoxication, that he was not conscious of what he was doing, or if he did know what he was doing, but d 1975"Capacity” cases include People v Haley, 48 Mich 495 ; 12 NW 671 (1882), People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468 ; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), and Roberts, supra. The reliance by trial courts on these prior decisions of our Supreme Court is reasonable and worthy of serious consideration. | 2 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Haley
neutral
2 sentences1975These rules are expressed in such language as: " '[T]oo drunk to be capable of forming the statutory intent’ (People v Haley, 48 Mich 495, 497 ; 12 NW 671 [1882]); "So intoxicated that they 'did not know what they were doing’ (People v Hearn, 354 Mich 568, 470 [sic]; 93 NW2d 302 [1958]); " 'So intoxicated * * * that he would be incapable of forming an intent * * * and did not know what he was doing’ (People v Stram, 40 Mich App 249, 252 ; 198 NW2d 753 [1972]); or " '[S]o far overcome by the intoxication, that he was not conscious of what he was doing, or if he did know what he was doing, but d 1975"Capacity” cases include People v Haley, 48 Mich 495 ; 12 NW 671 (1882), People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468 ; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), and Roberts, supra. The reliance by trial courts on these prior decisions of our Supreme Court is reasonable and worthy of serious consideration. | 2 | 1975–1975 |
Roberts v. People
green
2 sentences1975These rules are expressed in such language as: " '[T]oo drunk to be capable of forming the statutory intent’ (People v Haley, 48 Mich 495, 497 ; 12 NW 671 [1882]); "So intoxicated that they 'did not know what they were doing’ (People v Hearn, 354 Mich 568, 470 [sic]; 93 NW2d 302 [1958]); " 'So intoxicated * * * that he would be incapable of forming an intent * * * and did not know what he was doing’ (People v Stram, 40 Mich App 249, 252 ; 198 NW2d 753 [1972]); or " '[S]o far overcome by the intoxication, that he was not conscious of what he was doing, or if he did know what he was doing, but d 1975"Capacity” cases include People v Haley, 48 Mich 495 ; 12 NW 671 (1882), People v Hearn, 354 Mich 468 ; 93 NW2d 302 (1958), and Roberts, supra. The reliance by trial courts on these prior decisions of our Supreme Court is reasonable and worthy of serious consideration. | 2 | 1975–1975 |
People v. White
red
2 sentences1980In People v Markham, 397 Mich 530 ; 245 NW2d 41 (1976), reh den 398 Mich 952 (1976), the "same transaction” test in double jeopardy cases decided by People v White, 390 Mich 245 ; 212 NW2d 222 (1973), was applied prospectively. 1980In People v Markham, 397 Mich 530 ; 245 NW2d 41 (1976), reh den 398 Mich 952 (1976), the "same transaction” test in double jeopardy cases decided by People v White, 390 Mich 245 ; 212 NW2d 222 (1973), was applied prospectively. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Markham
green
2 sentences1980In People v Markham, 397 Mich 530 ; 245 NW2d 41 (1976), reh den 398 Mich 952 (1976), the "same transaction” test in double jeopardy cases decided by People v White, 390 Mich 245 ; 212 NW2d 222 (1973), was applied prospectively. 1980In People v Markham, 397 Mich 530 ; 245 NW2d 41 (1976), reh den 398 Mich 952 (1976), the "same transaction” test in double jeopardy cases decided by People v White, 390 Mich 245 ; 212 NW2d 222 (1973), was applied prospectively. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Sizemore
green
2 sentences1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). 1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Gunter
green
2 sentences1978People v Gunter, 76 Mich App 483, 492 ; 257 NW2d 133 (1977), People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 741-746 ; 223 NW2d 330 (1974). 1978People v Gunter, 76 Mich App 483, 492 ; 257 NW2d 133 (1977), People v Scott, 55 Mich App 739, 741-746 ; 223 NW2d 330 (1974). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Stephens
green
2 sentences1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). 1978People v Stephens, 71 Mich App 33, 37 ; 246 NW2d 429 (1976), People v Sizemore, 69 Mich App 672, 678-679 ; 245 NW2d 159 (1976), People v Parsons, 59 Mich App 79, 86 ; 228 NW2d 852 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Berryhill
green
2 sentences1976In People v Berryhill, 8 Mich App 497 ; 154 NW2d 593 (1967), then-Judge T. 1976In People v Berryhill, 8 Mich App 497 ; 154 NW2d 593 (1967), then-Judge T. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Stram
green
2 sentences1975These rules are expressed in such language as: " '[T]oo drunk to be capable of forming the statutory intent’ (People v Haley, 48 Mich 495, 497 ; 12 NW 671 [1882]); "So intoxicated that they 'did not know what they were doing’ (People v Hearn, 354 Mich 568, 470 [sic]; 93 NW2d 302 [1958]); " 'So intoxicated * * * that he would be incapable of forming an intent * * * and did not know what he was doing’ (People v Stram, 40 Mich App 249, 252 ; 198 NW2d 753 [1972]); or " '[S]o far overcome by the intoxication, that he was not conscious of what he was doing, or if he did know what he was doing, but d 1975These rules are expressed in such language as: " '[T]oo drunk to be capable of forming the statutory intent’ (People v Haley, 48 Mich 495, 497 ; 12 NW 671 [1882]); "So intoxicated that they 'did not know what they were doing’ (People v Hearn, 354 Mich 568, 470 [sic]; 93 NW2d 302 [1958]); " 'So intoxicated * * * that he would be incapable of forming an intent * * * and did not know what he was doing’ (People v Stram, 40 Mich App 249, 252 ; 198 NW2d 753 [1972]); or " '[S]o far overcome by the intoxication, that he was not conscious of what he was doing, or if he did know what he was doing, but d | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Guillett
green
2 sentences1974People v Guillett, 342 Mich 1 ; 69 NW2d 140 (1955); see also Crittle, supra. We therefore hold that this challenge to the trial court’s charge is properly before this Court even in the absence of a timely objection below. 2 See footnote 1 in Crittle, supra, 372 ; 212 NW2d 198 -199. 3 When stated as it was herein — "if the defendant' was so intoxicated as to be incapable of entertaining such intent, he cannot be convicted” — the capacity standard is a valid legal truism, since if defendant is so intoxicated as to lack the capacity to entertain the necessary intent, he, as both a matter of fact 1974People v Guillett, 342 Mich 1 ; 69 NW2d 140 (1955); see also Crittle, supra. We therefore hold that this challenge to the trial court’s charge is properly before this Court even in the absence of a timely objection below. 2 See footnote 1 in Crittle, supra, 372 ; 212 NW2d 198 -199. 3 When stated as it was herein — "if the defendant' was so intoxicated as to be incapable of entertaining such intent, he cannot be convicted” — the capacity standard is a valid legal truism, since if defendant is so intoxicated as to lack the capacity to entertain the necessary intent, he, as both a matter of fact | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.