Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Folsongreen2 sentences2002The court denied the defendant’s request to charge on intoxication, and the defendant excepted to the court’s refusal to grant his request. 28 The defendant claims that his statement regarding his drinking vodka might have raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of his specific intent to commit murder. “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Austin, 2002The court denied the defendant’s request to charge on intoxication, and the defendant excepted to the court’s refusal to grant his request. 28 The defendant claims that his statement regarding his drinking vodka might have raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of his specific intent to commit murder. “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Austin, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Traficondagreen2 sentences1998The state always has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was capable of forming the required specific intent.” As a preliminary matter, we note that “[w]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” State v. Stevenson, supra, 198 Conn. 568 ; see State v. Traficonda, 223 Conn. 273, 279 , 612 A.2d 45 (1992) (“ ‘criminal defendant’s intoxication is relevant to the determination of h 1998The state always has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was capable of forming the required specific intent.” As a preliminary matter, we note that “[w]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” State v. Stevenson, supra, 198 Conn. 568 ; see State v. Traficonda, 223 Conn. 273, 279 , 612 A.2d 45 (1992) (“ ‘criminal defendant’s intoxication is relevant to the determination of h | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Austin
green
2 sentences2008State v. Austin, 244 Conn. 226, 239 , 710 A.2d 732 (1998) (“[w]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2008State v. Austin, 244 Conn. 226, 239 , 710 A.2d 732 (1998) (“[w]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder” [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2002–2008 |
State v. Stevenson
green
2 sentences2017"While intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant's intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder." State v. Stevenson , 198 Conn. 560 , 568, 504 A.2d 1029 (1986) ; see General Statutes § 53a-7 ("[i]ntoxication shall not be a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the crime charged"). 2017"While intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant's intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder." State v. Stevenson , 198 Conn. 560 , 568, 504 A.2d 1029 (1986) ; see General Statutes § 53a-7 ("[i]ntoxication shall not be a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the crime charged"). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cable v. BIC Corp.
green
1 sentence2006“Intoxication, as used in General Statutes § 53a-7, means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lindo v. Mullaney, 78 Conn. App. 827, 835 , 829 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 920 , 835 A.2d 60 (2003). “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder. . . . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lindo v. Mullaney
green
1 sentence2006“Intoxication, as used in General Statutes § 53a-7, means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lindo v. Mullaney, 78 Conn. App. 827, 835 , 829 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 920 , 835 A.2d 60 (2003). “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder. . . . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Lindo v. Mullaney
neutral
2 sentences2006“Intoxication, as used in General Statutes § 53a-7, means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lindo v. Mullaney, 78 Conn. App. 827, 835 , 829 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 920 , 835 A.2d 60 (2003). “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder. . . . 2006“Intoxication, as used in General Statutes § 53a-7, means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lindo v. Mullaney, 78 Conn. App. 827, 835 , 829 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 920 , 835 A.2d 60 (2003). “[Wjhile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder. . . . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Ashby
green
1 sentence2002Furthermore, [ijntent to cause death may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading to and immediately following the death.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Young, 56 Conn. App. 831, 836 , 746 A.2d 795 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 904 , 753 A.2d 939 (2000). “[W]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal qu | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ambrogio v. Beaver Road Associates
green
1 sentence2002Furthermore, [ijntent to cause death may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading to and immediately following the death.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Young, 56 Conn. App. 831, 836 , 746 A.2d 795 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 904 , 753 A.2d 939 (2000). “[W]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal qu | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2002“Because the state has the burden of proving the element of specific intent, the quantum of evidence essential to warrant consideration of the effect of intoxication on the defendant can be no greater than that which might have raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the specified mental state.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 44 Conn. App. 818, 822 , 692 A.2d 846 , cert. denied, 242 Conn. 902 , 697 A.2d 363 (1997). 2002“Because the state has the burden of proving the element of specific intent, the quantum of evidence essential to warrant consideration of the effect of intoxication on the defendant can be no greater than that which might have raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the specified mental state.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 44 Conn. App. 818, 822 , 692 A.2d 846 , cert. denied, 242 Conn. 902 , 697 A.2d 363 (1997). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2002Furthermore, [ijntent to cause death may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading to and immediately following the death.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Young, 56 Conn. App. 831, 836 , 746 A.2d 795 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 904 , 753 A.2d 939 (2000). “[W]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal qu 2002Furthermore, [ijntent to cause death may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound inflicted and the events leading to and immediately following the death.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Young, 56 Conn. App. 831, 836 , 746 A.2d 795 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 904 , 753 A.2d 939 (2000). “[W]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder.” (Internal qu | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Crawford
green
2 sentences1986General Statutes § 53a-7; 10 State v. D’Antuono, 186 Conn. 414, 423 , 441 A.2d 846 (1982); State v. Crawford, 172 Conn. 65, 70 , 372 A.2d 154 (1976). 1986General Statutes § 53a-7; 10 State v. D’Antuono, 186 Conn. 414, 423 , 441 A.2d 846 (1982); State v. Crawford, 172 Conn. 65, 70 , 372 A.2d 154 (1976). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. D'ANTUONO
green
2 sentences1986General Statutes § 53a-7; 10 State v. D’Antuono, 186 Conn. 414, 423 , 441 A.2d 846 (1982); State v. Crawford, 172 Conn. 65, 70 , 372 A.2d 154 (1976). 1986General Statutes § 53a-7; 10 State v. D’Antuono, 186 Conn. 414, 423 , 441 A.2d 846 (1982); State v. Crawford, 172 Conn. 65, 70 , 372 A.2d 154 (1976). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.