intoxication defense in Nebraska

2019As we noted in State v. Hood , 301 Neb. 207 , 217, 917 N.W.2d 880 , 889 (2018), with regard to an intoxication defense: In State v. Vosler , [ 216 Neb. 461 , 345 N.W.2d 806 (1984),] we noted that "although there is but one type of insanity which will support a finding of not guilty or not responsible by reason of insanity, there are a variety of mental conditions which bear upon the ability to form a specific intent." We stated in State v. Dubray , 289 Neb. at 239 , 854 N.W.2d at 611-12 , that "[u]nder Nebraska common law, intoxication is not a justification or excuse for a crime, but it may b

2019As we noted in State v. Hood , 301 Neb. 207 , 217, 917 N.W.2d 880 , 889 (2018), with regard to an intoxication defense: In State v. Vosler , [ 216 Neb. 461 , 345 N.W.2d 806 (1984),] we noted that "although there is but one type of insanity which will support a finding of not guilty or not responsible by reason of insanity, there are a variety of mental conditions which bear upon the ability to form a specific intent." We stated in State v. Dubray , 289 Neb. at 239 , 854 N.W.2d at 611-12 , that "[u]nder Nebraska common law, intoxication is not a justification or excuse for a crime, but it may b

2019See, State v. Mueller , 301 Neb. 778 , 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018) ; State v. Abejide , 293 Neb. 687 , 879 N.W.2d 684 (2016).

2019See, State v. Mueller , 301 Neb. 778 , 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018) ; State v. Abejide , 293 Neb. 687 , 879 N.W.2d 684 (2016).

2026So, the initial question is whether the arguments in Reeves’ appellate brief were raised as objections before the district court below. - 446 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. REEVES Cite as 321 Neb. 427 When we view the record of the jury instruction confer- ence side by side with Reeves’ brief, we see one objection in common: Both before the district court and on appeal, Reeves argued that the intoxication instruction was confusing to jurors because he had not raised intoxication as a defense at trial.

2023Instead, after being provided with the instruction in advance, both parties affirmatively stated during a jury instruction conference that they had no objec- tion to it. 28 See State v. Lamb, 213 Neb. 498 , 330 N.W.2d 462 (1983). 29 See NJI2d Crim. 8.0.

2023Instead, after being provided with the instruction in advance, both parties affirmatively stated during a jury instruction conference that they had no objec- tion to it. 28 See State v. Lamb, 213 Neb. 498 , 330 N.W.2d 462 (1983). 29 See NJI2d Crim. 8.0.

2019Thereafter, we consider whether an intoxication instruction was warranted instead of an insanity instruction and, if so, whether the intoxication instruction given by the district court in this case was appropriate. - 736 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BIGELOW Cite as 303 Neb. 729 Insanity Defense and Intoxication Defense Developed in Nebraska Common Law and Are Controlled to Some Extent by Statute.

2019We stated in State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 270, 795 N.W.2d 645 , 653 (2011), “[i]n Nebraska, the intoxication defense has been available to a defendant under common law almost as long as the insanity - 737 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BIGELOW Cite as 303 Neb. 729 defense.” However, we described the intoxication defense as not being a “justification or excuse for a crime,” but as a factor that could be “considered to negate specific intent.” Id.

2014See, Nalley v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 204 Neb. 370 , 282 N.W.2d 47 (1979); Hilt Truck Lines, Inc. v. Jones, 204 Neb. 115 , 281 N.W.2d 399 (1979), overruled on other grounds, Bassinger v. Nebraska Heart Hosp., 282 Neb. 835 , 806 N.W.2d 395 (2011).

2014See, Nalley v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 204 Neb. 370 , 282 N.W.2d 47 (1979); Hilt Truck Lines, Inc. v. Jones, 204 Neb. 115 , 281 N.W.2d 399 (1979), overruled on other grounds, Bassinger v. Nebraska Heart Hosp., 282 Neb. 835 , 806 N.W.2d 395 (2011).

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.

1990State v. Coleman, 196 Neb. 721 , 246 N.W.2d 61 (1976); State v. Barnes, 185 Neb. 384 , 176 N.W.2d 18 (1970); State v. Brown, supra; Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275 , 85 N.W.2d 509 (1957); Tvrz v. State, supra. Reynolds asserts: “The jury was positively misled into believing that it could not consider the intoxication evidence for any other purpose than the intoxication defense by its misleading presence in the instruction packet.” Brief for cross-appellant at 30.