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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lodengreen2 sentences2012Finally, in People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975), also cited by Petitioner, the defendant argued that the intoxication instruction should not have been given because “he was not offering intoxication as a defense.” Thus, the appellate court was tasked with determining whether the trial court, by giving the instruction, had prejudiced the defendant’s other trial strategies, a situation clearly different from this case. 2012Finally, in People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975), also cited by Petitioner, the defendant argued that the intoxication instruction should not have been given because “he was not offering intoxication as a defense.” Thus, the appellate court was tasked with determining whether the trial court, by giving the instruction, had prejudiced the defendant’s other trial strategies, a situation clearly different from this case. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Govergreen2 sentences2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). 2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Accordingly, the voluntary intoxication instruction was not generated by the evidence in this case.” Id. at 532, 10 A.3d at 820 (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). 2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). | 1 | 1 |
Montana v. Egelhoffgreen2 sentences2010See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 51 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 . 2010See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 51 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 1 |
Lawrence v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lambgreen2 sentences2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence 2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 1 |
Dunlop v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 1 |
Avey v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Avey v. State, 249 Md. 385 , 240 A.2d 107 (1968); State v. Cover, 267 Md. 602 , 298 A.2d 378 (1973). 2001See Avey v. State, 249 Md. 385 , 240 A.2d 107 (1968); State v. Cover, 267 Md. 602 , 298 A.2d 378 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Smithgreen2 sentences1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. 14 See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). 1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. [14] See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mock v. State
green
2 sentences2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). 2010See Lewis, 79 Md.App. at 8 , 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775 , 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court’s decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 Md. at 608 , 298 A.2d 378 (affirming this Court’s decision to remand for a new trial where, in a court trial, the court did not consider whether defendant’s voluntary intoxication negated the mens rea necessary to support the conviction). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Prentice v. Schindler Elevator Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2010See People v. Loden, 27 Ill.App.3d 761 , 327 N.E.2d 58, 61 (1975) (concluding court did not err in giving intoxication instruction over defense objection because some evidence of defendant’s intoxication had been introduced in an exculpatory manner); State v. Jenkins, 412 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1987) (concluding that, where there was evidence defendant was intoxicated, trial court did not err in giving intoxication instruction, as well as insanity defense instruction, over defense objection); Lawrence v. State, 3 So.3d 754, 758-59 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (holding, in a case where there was evidence | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wieland v. State
green
2 sentences2010It is well settled law in Maryland that “[vjoluntary intoxication, although it will never be allowed to negate a general criminal intent, may, if sufficient, be found to have eroded a specific *526 intent.” Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 32 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994). 2010It is well settled law in Maryland that “[vjoluntary intoxication, although it will never be allowed to negate a general criminal intent, may, if sufficient, be found to have eroded a specific *526 intent.” Wieland v. State, 101 Md.App. 1, 32 , 643 A.2d 446 (1994). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Evans v. State
green
2 sentences2010The trial court in this case observed that Hardaway concerned a constitutional right, and that defense counsel was comparing “apples and hand grenades.” The State responded that Evans v. State, 28 Md.App. 640, 722 , 349 A.2d 300 (1975), supported its position that the voluntary intoxication instruction could be given over defense objection. 2010The trial court in this case observed that Hardaway concerned a constitutional right, and that defense counsel was comparing “apples and hand grenades.” The State responded that Evans v. State, 28 Md.App. 640, 722 , 349 A.2d 300 (1975), supported its position that the voluntary intoxication instruction could be given over defense objection. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Koffley v. Koffley
green
1 sentence2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Benson v. State
green
1 sentence2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cantine v. State
green
2 sentences2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form 2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sutton v. State
green
2 sentences2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form 2005Cantine v. State, 160 Md.App. 391, 411 , 864 A.2d 226 (2004) (holding that a renunciation instruction for the crime of conspiracy was not warranted when “although the record provide[d] sparse evidence of [appellant’s] involvement in the conspiracy ... there [was] no evidence of an affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy”), cert. denied, 386 Md. 181 , 872 A.2d 46 (2005); Sutton v. State, 139 Md.App. 412, 428-29 , 776 A.2d 47 (2001) (holding that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not warranted when “no evidence was established at trial of any impairment of [appellant’s] ability to form | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hunt v. Nuth
green
2 sentences1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. 14 See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). 1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. [14] See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Myers v. Massachusetts Trial Court
green
2 sentences1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. 14 See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). 1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. [14] See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wojnicz v. Stegall
green
2 sentences1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. 14 See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). 1996The decision on how best to present a defense is a tactical one. [14] See Hunt v. Smith, 856 F.Supp. 251, 257 (D.Md.1994), aff'd sub nom., Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 116 S.Ct. 724 , 133 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lynn v. Magness
green
2 sentences1986In contracts, for example, we have said that "[i]f a man is so intoxicated that he is substantially non compos mentis his contract will be held invalid...." Lynn v. Magness, 191 Md. 674, 682 , 62 A.2d 604 (1948). 1986In contracts, for example, we have said that "[i]f a man is so intoxicated that he is substantially non compos mentis his contract will be held invalid...." Lynn v. Magness, 191 Md. 674, 682 , 62 A.2d 604 (1948). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.