7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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. Bienkowskigreen2 sentences1984Yet, evidence of mere intoxication does not raise the voluntary intoxication defense. 1 State v. Bienkowski, 624 S.W.2d 107, 108 (Mo.App.1981). 1983State v. Bienkowski, 624 S.W.2d 107, 108 (Mo.App.1981). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2007That argument is similar to a constitutional challenge made to the voluntary intoxication instruction — MAI-CR 3d 310.50 — which, prior to amendment, read: “You are instructed that an intoxicated condition from alcohol will not relieve a person of responsibility for his conduct.” State v. Taylor, 944 S.W.2d 925, 936 (Mo.banc 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mouse
green
1 sentence2009In Mouse, 989 S.W.2d at 189 n. 4, the court states that no evidence of impairment is necessary to support the submission of a voluntary intoxication instruction. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Consolidated Chemical Works v. Marcus
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 826 , 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993), the Missouri Supreme Court found that the then existing version of the voluntary intoxication instruction implicitly relieved the state of its burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt and was, therefore, unconstitutional. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Missouri v. Erwin
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 826 , 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993), the Missouri Supreme Court found that the then existing version of the voluntary intoxication instruction implicitly relieved the state of its burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt and was, therefore, unconstitutional. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Baber v. Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 826 , 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993), the Missouri Supreme Court found that the then existing version of the voluntary intoxication instruction implicitly relieved the state of its burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt and was, therefore, unconstitutional. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Erwin
green
1 sentence1997In State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 826 , 114 S.Ct. 88 , 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993), the Missouri Supreme Court found that the then existing version of the voluntary intoxication instruction implicitly relieved the state of its burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt and was, therefore, unconstitutional. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences1993On the basis of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), the majority concludes that the voluntary intoxication instruction “effectively creates a presumption that an intoxicated person has the requisite mental state, relieving the State of its constitutional burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” If that conclusion is correct, there is unquestionably a due process violation. 1993On the basis of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), the majority concludes that the voluntary intoxication instruction “effectively creates a presumption that an intoxicated person has the requisite mental state, relieving the State of its constitutional burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” If that conclusion is correct, there is unquestionably a due process violation. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Richardson
green
1 sentence1981The voluntary intoxication instruction reads: The Court instructs the jury that if you find and believe from the evidence that the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the alleged offense charged, you should not consider such intoxication as constituting any excuse, mitigation or extenuation of the alleged offense, because voluntarily [sic] drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did commit said offense. [Not in MAI-CR, (State v. Richardson, 495 S.W.2d 435, 440 , Mo. banc) by S | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.