7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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. Straussgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶¶ 49-51 , 317 Mont. 1 , 74 P.3d 1052 (though intoxication not raised as a defense, defendant failed to show that giving intoxication instruction prejudiced her). 2009See State v. Strauss, 2003 MT 195, ¶¶ 49-51 , 317 Mont. 1 , 74 P.3d 1052 (though intoxication not raised as a defense, defendant failed to show that giving intoxication instruction prejudiced her). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montana v. Egelhoff
green
2 sentences2004The intoxication instruction merely advised the jury that intoxication does not excuse otherwise criminal conduct.”). ¶23 Furthermore, the State asserts that textually, the due process clauses of the United States and Montana Constitutions are identical; therefore, based upon Montana v. Egelhoff (1996), 518 U.S. 37 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 361 , § 45-2-203, MCA, does not violate Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution. 2004The intoxication instruction merely advised the jury that intoxication does not excuse otherwise criminal conduct.”). ¶23 Furthermore, the State asserts that textually, the due process clauses of the United States and Montana Constitutions are identical; therefore, based upon Montana v. Egelhoff (1996), 518 U.S. 37 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 L.Ed. 2d 361 , § 45-2-203, MCA, does not violate Article II, Section 17 of the Montana Constitution. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Kills on Top v. State
green
2 sentences2012The intoxication instruction “merely advised the jury that intoxication does not excuse otherwise criminal conduct.” Kills On Top v. State, 273 Mont. 32, 50 , 901 P.2d 1368 (1995) (emphasis added). 2012The intoxication instruction “merely advised the jury that intoxication does not excuse otherwise criminal conduct.” Kills On Top v. State, 273 Mont. 32, 50 , 901 P.2d 1368 (1995) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Pittman
green
2 sentences2006Davis , ¶ 33. ¶37 Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason, and thus it did not abuse its discretion by admitting the blood alcohol evidence. ¶38 Was the intoxication instruction given to the jury an incorrect statement of the law and reversible error? ¶39 We stated the applicable standard of review for jury instructions in State v. Pittman, 2005 MT 70, ¶ 30 , 326 Mont. 324, ¶ 30 , 109 P.3d 237 , ¶ 30: We review jury instructions to determine whether the instructions as a whole fully and fairly instruct the jury on the applicable law 2006Davis , ¶ 33. ¶37 Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not act arbitrarily or exceed the bounds of reason, and thus it did not abuse its discretion by admitting the blood alcohol evidence. ¶38 Was the intoxication instruction given to the jury an incorrect statement of the law and reversible error? ¶39 We stated the applicable standard of review for jury instructions in State v. Pittman, 2005 MT 70, ¶ 30 , 326 Mont. 324, ¶ 30 , 109 P.3d 237 , ¶ 30: We review jury instructions to determine whether the instructions as a whole fully and fairly instruct the jury on the applicable law | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Egelhoff
green
2 sentences1995In contrast to out recent decision in State v. Egelhoff (1995), [ 272 Mont. 114 ], 900 P.2d 260 , Appellant does not contend that the intoxication instruction violated his due process rights by prohibiting the jury from considering intoxication in determining the existence of the requisite mental state. 1995In contrast to out recent decision in State v. Egelhoff (1995), [ 272 Mont. 114 ], 900 P.2d 260 , Appellant does not contend that the intoxication instruction violated his due process rights by prohibiting the jury from considering intoxication in determining the existence of the requisite mental state. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Ostwald
green
1 sentence1987Ostwald, 591 P.2d at 650 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.