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 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baird v. Stategreen1 sentence2014It would normally occur as an element right after the intent element.] Authority: IN Pattern Instruction No. 9.01 “[O]nce evidence in the record raises the issue of voluntariness, the [S]tate must prove the accused acted voluntarily beyond a reasonable doubt.” Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1176 (Ind. 1992); but see Davidson v. State, 849 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2006) (holding that evidence of involuntary intoxication does not require instruction including voluntariness as element of crime, although evidence supported an involuntary intoxication defense). | 1 | 1 |
Heyward v. Stategreen2 sentences2000See Heyward v. State, 470 N.E.2d 63, 64 (Ind.1984) (finding a similar involuntary intoxication instruction, based upon previous versions of Ind.Code §§ 35-41-3-5 and 35-41-3-6(a), was correct). . 2000(R. at 1095.) [5] See Heyward v. State, 470 N.E.2d 63, 64 (Ind.1984) (finding a similar involuntary intoxication instruction, based upon previous versions of Ind.Code §§ 35-41-3-5 and 35-41-3-6(a), was correct). [6] In Wilson v. State , we discussed a defendant's assertion, based upon an insanity defense, that there was a "serious evidentiary dispute" regarding his intent to commit murder. 697 N.E.2d 466, 474-75 (Ind.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2000(R. at 1095.) [5] See Heyward v. State, 470 N.E.2d 63, 64 (Ind.1984) (finding a similar involuntary intoxication instruction, based upon previous versions of Ind.Code §§ 35-41-3-5 and 35-41-3-6(a), was correct). [6] In Wilson v. State , we discussed a defendant's assertion, based upon an insanity defense, that there was a "serious evidentiary dispute" regarding his intent to commit murder. 697 N.E.2d 466, 474-75 (Ind.1998). 2000Id. [7] Negating culpability would have been difficult, in light of Ellis' declared intention a few weeks earlier to kill Angie and any person that she dated, "because if he can't have her nobody can." (R. at 809-11.) [8] Note, we do not hold that an involuntary intoxication defense precludes an instruction on reckless homicide. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davidson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014It would normally occur as an element right after the intent element.] Authority: IN Pattern Instruction No. 9.01 “[O]nce evidence in the record raises the issue of voluntariness, the [S]tate must prove the accused acted voluntarily beyond a reasonable doubt.” Baird v. State, 604 N.E.2d 1170, 1176 (Ind. 1992); but see Davidson v. State, 849 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2006) (holding that evidence of involuntary intoxication does not require instruction including voluntariness as element of crime, although evidence supported an involuntary intoxication defense). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ellis v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2013“An involuntary intoxication defense disputes the existence of intent.” Id. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
Alfrey v. State
green
1 sentence2014During the pre-trial proceedings, Mamon argued that he should be entitled to an involuntary intoxication defense because he “didn’t know what the medicine was going to [do and] didn’t know that dosage . . . was so at an extreme level that it would cause me to be intoxicated.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Stroud v. State
green
1 sentence2014Stroud v. State, 809 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. 2004). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Davidson’s claimed error concerning rejection of his instruction defining voluntary thus becomes moot. 3 . 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). 4 . 2006Davidson’s claimed error concerning rejection of his instruction defining voluntary thus becomes moot. 3 . 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). 4 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2000Id. *734 Ellis contends that there was a serious evidentiary dispute regarding his intent based upon his assertion of an involuntary intoxication defense. [4] He reasons that if the jury had determined that he did not have the requisite intent to commit murder, then the jury could have instead concluded that he committed reckless homicide. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.