voluntary intoxication instruction (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

voluntary intoxication instruction in Oklahoma

14 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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.

Followed or applied (15)

CaseFollowedCited
McElmurry v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2002 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2018
2 sentences

2018Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6 , ¶ 28, 230 P.3d 888 , 899 ; see also McElmurry v. State , 2002 OK CR 40 , ¶ 72, 60 P.3d 4 , 23.

2018Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6 , ¶ 28, 230 P.3d 888 , 899 ; see also McElmurry v. State , 2002 OK CR 40 , ¶ 72, 60 P.3d 4 , 23.

34
Jackson v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1998 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1998–2011
2 sentences

1998See also Jackson, 964 P.2d at 901-2 . ¶ 3 If I were to apply the procedure I suggested in Jackson to the limited facts set out in the opinion, I would find the trial judge correctly denied the request for the voluntary intoxication instruction and the testimony of Dr. Murphy in the first stage of the trial.

1998See also Jackson, 964 P.2d at 901-2 . ¶ 3 If I were to apply the procedure I suggested in Jackson to the limited facts set out in the opinion, I would find the trial judge correctly denied the request for the voluntary intoxication instruction and the testimony of Dr. Murphy in the first stage of the trial.

24
Malone v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011
2 sentences

2011Cuesta-Rodriguez contends that Charm was overruled by Malone v. State, 2007 OK CR 34 , ¶ 22 n. 48, 168 P.3d 185 , 197 n. 48.

2011Cuesta-Rodriguez contends that Charm was overruled by Malone v. State, 2007 OK CR 34 , ¶ 22 n. 48, 168 P.3d 185 , 197 n. 48.

23
Charm v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1996 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–2011
2 sentences

2011See Rule 8.14(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010) (petition for rehearing must show that "(1) [slome question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or (@)[t)he decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument"). 2. 14 Cuesta-Rodriguez next asks that we reconsider our decision on the voluntary intoxication instruction because, he asserts, it was wrongly decided as a result of

2011See Rule 8.14(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010) (petition for rehearing must show that "(1) [slome question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or (@)[t)he decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument"). 2. 14 Cuesta-Rodriguez next asks that we reconsider our decision on the voluntary intoxication instruction because, he asserts, it was wrongly decided as a result of

13
Frederick v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011See Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34 , 1 180, 37 P.3d 908, 942 ("[mJere consumption of alcohol and marijuana is not sufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense without a showing that it prevented defendant from forming a premeditated intent").

2011See Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34 , 1 180, 37 P.3d 908, 942 ("[mJere consumption of alcohol and marijuana is not sufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense without a showing that it prevented defendant from forming a premeditated intent").

12
In Re Estate of Minorgreen
cal · 1919 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354 , 1 21, 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 180 P. 813, 814 (1913). 13 However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, 130 , 87 P.3d 908, 942 , this Court said: Mere consumption of alcohol and mari-juona is not sufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense without a showing that it prevented defendant from forming a premeditated intent.

11
Miller v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1913 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

11
Mott v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1951 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Furthermore, we cannot find that the proposed testimony about Cuesta-Rodriguez's depression was relevant to a voluntary intoxication defense to the first degree murder charge or to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. [7] See e.g., Mott v. State, 1951 OK CR 68 , 232 P.2d 166, 179 (holding that when defendant claims mental faculties have been destroyed by chronic intoxication, appropriate defense is insanity, not voluntary intoxication). ¶ 16 Moreover, we are not convinced that Dr. Choca was qualified to testify as to the effects of combining alcohol and the steroid diprospan.

2010Furthermore, we cannot find that the proposed testimony about Cuesta-Rodriguez's depression was relevant to a voluntary intoxication defense to the first degree murder charge or to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. [7] See e.g., Mott v. State, 1951 OK CR 68 , 232 P.2d 166, 179 (holding that when defendant claims mental faculties have been destroyed by chronic intoxication, appropriate defense is insanity, not voluntary intoxication). ¶ 16 Moreover, we are not convinced that Dr. Choca was qualified to testify as to the effects of combining alcohol and the steroid diprospan.

11
Norton v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Malone confirmed that he had a general awareness of the instructions and was satisfied with them. [51] See, e.g., Norton v. State, 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 17 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 . [52] Malone's Instruction No. 37 accurately tracks OUJI-CR(2d) 8-35, which introduces the voluntary intoxication defense, and which has not changed since the adoption of the Second Edition to Oklahoma's Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions in 1996.

2007Malone confirmed that he had a general awareness of the instructions and was satisfied with them. [51] See, e.g., Norton v. State, 2002 OK CR 10, ¶ 17 , 43 P.3d 404, 409 . [52] Malone's Instruction No. 37 accurately tracks OUJI-CR(2d) 8-35, which introduces the voluntary intoxication defense, and which has not changed since the adoption of the Second Edition to Oklahoma's Uniform Criminal Jury Instructions in 1996.

11
Valdez v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 379 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 967 , 116 S.Ct. 425 , 133 L.Ed.2d 341 (1995). ¶ 29 In the present case, the record does not support the giving of an instruction on voluntary intoxication as there was no *969 evidence that Appellant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the necessary intent to kill.

11
Parker v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996As dicta, it does not provide Charm a basis for relief. [4] 827 P.2d 875 (Okl.Cr.1992). [5] 917 P.2d 980, 985-987 (Okl.Cr.1996). [6] Id. at 985 . [7] Id. at 986 . [8] Nothing in the voluntary intoxication instruction suggests that if the jury finds lack of intent for malice murder, they must automatically consider a lesser included offense.

1996As dicta, it does not provide Charm a basis for relief. [4] 827 P.2d 875 (Okl.Cr.1992). [5] 917 P.2d 980, 985-987 (Okl.Cr.1996). [6] Id. at 985 . [7] Id. at 986 . [8] Nothing in the voluntary intoxication instruction suggests that if the jury finds lack of intent for malice murder, they must automatically consider a lesser included offense.

11
Allen v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
11
Hogan v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
11
Pickens v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

11
Walker v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Charm v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1996 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1999–2011
2 sentences

2011See Rule 8.14(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010) (petition for rehearing must show that "(1) [slome question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or (@)[t)he decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument"). 2. 14 Cuesta-Rodriguez next asks that we reconsider our decision on the voluntary intoxication instruction because, he asserts, it was wrongly decided as a result of

2011See Rule 8.14(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2010) (petition for rehearing must show that "(1) [slome question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or (@)[t)he decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument"). 2. 14 Cuesta-Rodriguez next asks that we reconsider our decision on the voluntary intoxication instruction because, he asserts, it was wrongly decided as a result of

13

Also cited on this issue (20)

CaseCitedYears
Simpson v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2010
2 sentences

2018Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6 , ¶ 28, 230 P.3d 888 , 899 ; see also McElmurry v. State , 2002 OK CR 40 , ¶ 72, 60 P.3d 4 , 23.

2018Simpson v. State , 2010 OK CR 6 , ¶ 28, 230 P.3d 888 , 899 ; see also McElmurry v. State , 2002 OK CR 40 , ¶ 72, 60 P.3d 4 , 23.

32011–2018
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2010
2 sentences

2018He has therefore preserved this claim for our review. ¶74 "Before a voluntary intoxication instruction is given, the evidence must be sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the defendant was intoxicated to the point he was unable to form deliberate intent to kill." Id. , 2010 OK CR 23 , ¶ 11, 241 P.3d at 223 .

2018He has therefore preserved this claim for our review. ¶74 "Before a voluntary intoxication instruction is given, the evidence must be sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the defendant was intoxicated to the point he was unable to form deliberate intent to kill." Id. , 2010 OK CR 23 , ¶ 11, 241 P.3d at 223 .

22018–2018
Ball v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2007
2 sentences

2018We have held that: Prima facie evidence is evidence that is "good and sufficient on its face," i.e., "sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the defendant's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports." Black's Law Dictionary 1190 (6th ed. 1990); Ball v. State , 2007 OK CR 42 , ¶ 29 n.4, 173 P.3d 81 , 90 n.4.

2018We have held that: Prima facie evidence is evidence that is "good and sufficient on its face," i.e., "sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the defendant's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports." Black's Law Dictionary 1190 (6th ed. 1990); Ball v. State , 2007 OK CR 42 , ¶ 29 n.4, 173 P.3d 81 , 90 n.4.

22018–2018
Grissom v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2011
2 sentences

2016There, the Court held that: . [where the defendant makes admissions by counsel during trial that render every defense unavailable save one, he is deemed to have elected that defense; and may, by his election, foreclose the submission of instructions on other theories of defense or lesser-included offenses inconsistent with his defense. 2011 OK CR 3 , 1 35, 258 P.3d at 982 .

2016In declining the instruction, which counsel assumed Appellant would be entitled to because of the evidence of his intoxication, trial counsel explained their concern that under the voluntary intoxication instruction: [I]f it hasn't been proven to them by the defendant that he was incapable of forming, in this case, malice aforethought, then malice aforethought exists. 179 Counsel acknowledged that the instruction placed no burden on them to prove intoxication, but further stated that: In a cage where we have what we believe is significant evidence of a lack of malice outside of the intoxicatio

22016–2016
PROGRESSIVE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Swartz green
kan · 2011
1 sentence

2016There, the Court held that: . [where the defendant makes admissions by counsel during trial that render every defense unavailable save one, he is deemed to have elected that defense; and may, by his election, foreclose the submission of instructions on other theories of defense or lesser-included offenses inconsistent with his defense. 2011 OK CR 3 , 1 35, 258 P.3d at 982 .

12016–2016
Taylor v. State green
oklacrimapp · 2000
2 sentences

2011Id., 2000 OK CR 6, ¶ 20 , 998 P.2d at 1230 .

2011Id., 2000 OK CR 6, ¶ 20 , 998 P.2d at 1230 .

12011–2011
Oxendine v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1958
2 sentences

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

12011–2011
Williams v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1973
2 sentences

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

2011We also agree with Appellant that when the district court instructs on voluntary intoxication as a defense to first degree murder, the court must give a corresponding instruction on the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder or first degree manslaughter. *984 Williams v. State, 1973 OK CR 354, ¶ 21 , 513 P.2d 335, 339 ; Oxendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104, ¶ 10 , 335 P.2d 940, 944 ; Miller v. State, 9 Okl.Cr. 55, 57-58 , 130 P. 813, 814 (1913). [13] However, these premises cannot obtain relief for the Appellant here. ¶ 39 In Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, ¶ 130 , 37 P.3d 908, 942 ,

12011–2011
Perryman v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1999
2 sentences

2010Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, ¶ 11 , 990 P.2d 900, 904 . ¶ 15 In this instance, the trial court judge sustained the State's objection to Dr. Choca's first stage testimony about alcohol, diprospan, and depression as part of the voluntary intoxication defense by finding the evidence of alcohol impairment insufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense.

2010Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, ¶ 11 , 990 P.2d 900, 904 . ¶ 15 In this instance, the trial court judge sustained the State's objection to Dr. Choca's first stage testimony about alcohol, diprospan, and depression as part of the voluntary intoxication defense by finding the evidence of alcohol impairment insufficient to raise the voluntary intoxication defense.

12010–2010
Sanders v. Percy green
okla · 1923
2 sentences

2010Furthermore, we cannot find that the proposed testimony about Cuesta-Rodriguer's depression was relevant to a voluntary intoxication defense to the first degree murder charge or to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. 7 See e.g., Mott v. State, 1951 OK CR 68 , 94 Okla.Crim. 145 , 232 P.2d 166, 179 (holding that when defendant claims mental faculties have been destroyed by chronic intoxication, appropriate defense is insanity, not voluntary intoxication). ¶ 16 Moreover, we are not convinced that Dr. Choca was qualified to testify as to the effects of combining alcohol and the steroid di

2010Furthermore, we cannot find that the proposed testimony about Cuesta-Rodriguer's depression was relevant to a voluntary intoxication defense to the first degree murder charge or to the lesser included offense of manslaughter. 7 See e.g., Mott v. State, 1951 OK CR 68 , 94 Okla.Crim. 145 , 232 P.2d 166, 179 (holding that when defendant claims mental faculties have been destroyed by chronic intoxication, appropriate defense is insanity, not voluntary intoxication). ¶ 16 Moreover, we are not convinced that Dr. Choca was qualified to testify as to the effects of combining alcohol and the steroid di

12010–2010
Tarter v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1961
2 sentences

2000Appellant relies on Tarter v. State, 1961 OK CR 18 , ¶ 34, 359 P.2d 596, 601 , where this Court held "[i]n a prosecution for murder, the court should instruct the jury on the law of each degree of homicide which the evidence tends to prove, whether it be requested or not. . . ." ¶ 18 The State responds that the trial court erred in giving the voluntary intoxication instruction because evidence that Appellant had consumed alcohol and amphetamines on the day of the offense was not sufficient evidence upon which to give the instruction.

2000Appellant relies on Tarter v. State, 1961 OK CR 18 , ¶ 34, 359 P.2d 596, 601 , where this Court held “[i]n a prosecution for murder, the court should instruct the jury on the law of each degree of homicide which the evidence tends to prove, whether it be requested or not....” ¶ 18 The State responds that the trial court erred in giving the voluntary intoxication instruction because evidence that Appellant had consumed alcohol and amphetamines on the day of the offense was not sufficient evidence upon which to give the instruction.

12000–2000
Jackson v. Denno green
scotus · 1964
2 sentences

1999In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime."). [3] 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). [*] Judge Lane entered his vote in this case prior to his retirement on December 31, 1998.

1999In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime."). [3] 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). [*] Judge Lane entered his vote in this case prior to his retirement on December 31, 1998.

11999–1999
Reemsnyder v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration green
scotus · 1995
2 sentences

1998Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 379 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 967 , 116 S.Ct. 425 , 133 L.Ed.2d 341 (1995). ¶ 29 In the present case, the record does not support the giving of an instruction on voluntary intoxication as there was no *969 evidence that Appellant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the necessary intent to kill.

1998Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 379 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 967 , 116 S.Ct. 425 , 133 L.Ed.2d 341 (1995). ¶ 29 In the present case, the record does not support the giving of an instruction on voluntary intoxication as there was no *969 evidence that Appellant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the necessary intent to kill.

11998–1998
Bentley v. Artuz green
scotus · 1995
1 sentence

1998Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 379 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 967 , 116 S.Ct. 425 , 133 L.Ed.2d 341 (1995). ¶ 29 In the present case, the record does not support the giving of an instruction on voluntary intoxication as there was no *969 evidence that Appellant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the necessary intent to kill.

11998–1998
Toles v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1997
2 sentences

1998In Toles v. State, 1997 OK CR 45 , 947 P.2d 180, 187-88 , we held there was no Ake violation where the Executive Director failed to approve an attorney's request for a pharmacologist to investigate and develop a voluntary intoxication defense.

1998In Toles v. State, 1997 OK CR 45 , 947 P.2d 180, 187-88 , we held there was no Ake violation where the Executive Director failed to approve an attorney's request for a pharmacologist to investigate and develop a voluntary intoxication defense.

11998–1998
Schad v. Arizona green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

11996–1996
Miller v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1992
11996–1996
Gossage v. Oldenkamp green
scotus · 1995
11996–1996
Steward v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. green
scotus · 1995
11996–1996
Beck v. Alabama green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

1996In fact, OUJI-CR 735 provides that if the State fails to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to an accused's intoxication, the jury must simply find the accused not guilty of that particular crime. [9] 501 U.S. 624 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991). [10] 447 U.S. 625 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). [11] 885 P.2d at 682-83 . [12] Id. at 682 (emphasis added). [13] Hogan v. State, 877 P.2d 1157, 1165 (Okl.Cr. 1994) (Chapel, J., dissenting), cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1154 , 130 L.Ed.2d 1111 (1995). [14] Allen v. State, 821 P.2d 371, 374 (Okl.Cr.1991) (quoting Wa

11996–1996

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.12 (10) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.13 (9) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (8) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2403 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2803 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 20, § 3001.1 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 153 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 711 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2705 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 659 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 108 (1987–2026) FL 104 (1985–2025) WA 79 (1976–2026) KS 50 (1978–2026) PA 43 (2001–2026) TX 35 (2003–2026) IN 30 (1976–2020) KY 28 (1993–2025) NC 28 (1989–2026) IL 18 (1971–2025) MN 18 (1976–2023) CO 15 (2009–2026) OK 14 (1996–2018) AZ 12 (1984–2024) NJ 10 (2011–2025) MA 10 (1995–2018) NM 10 (1996–2026) UT 8 (2006–2026) WI 8 (1981–2025) MO 7 (1981–2009) MD 6 (1986–2012) TN 6 (1990–2016) NV 5 (2018–2021) GA 4 (1995–2010) NY 4 (2013–2025) MS 4 (1992–2017) AL 4 (1993–2016) MI 3 (1981–2023) DC 3 (1982–2025) OH 3 (1999–2022) LA 3 (2019–2026) ME 2 (2019–2019) WY 2 (1986–2002) MT 2 (1996–2003)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check