6 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Handy v. Gearygreen2 sentences1996Moreover, a Handy hearing is designed to address “the potential prejudice to a litigant by the admission of this kind of evidence.” Handy, 105 R.I. at 431 , 252 A.2d at 441 . 1996Moreover, a Handy hearing is designed to address “the potential prejudice to a litigant by the admission of this kind of evidence.” Handy, 105 R.I. at 431 , 252 A.2d at 441 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2013Id. at 582-88 (Handy standard not met when an individual had been drinking but no proof was presented as to a lack of physical and mental faculties). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ahmadjiangreen2 sentences2013See Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d at 1088 (cross-examination properly limited when the defendant failed to offer an evidentiary basis for his allegation that a witness was intoxicated). 2013See Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d at 1088 (cross-examination properly limited when the defendant failed to offer an evidentiary basis for his allegation that a witness was intoxicated). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mattatallgreen2 sentences2013See Mattatall, 114 R.I. at 573 , 337 A.2d at 233 (attempting to infer that an individual was intoxicated based on the presence of alcohol and narcotics in his system was “far too tenuous” to meet the Handy standard and, therefore, was properly excluded). 2013See Mattatall, 114 R.I. at 573 , 337 A.2d at 233 (attempting to infer that an individual was intoxicated based on the presence of alcohol and narcotics in his system was “far too tenuous” to meet the Handy standard and, therefore, was properly excluded). | 1 | 1 |
Amend v. Bellgreen2 sentences2000See Amend v. Bell, 89 Wash.2d 124 , 570 P.2d 138, 141 (1977). 2000See Amend v. Bell, 89 Wash.2d 124 , 570 P.2d 138, 141 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lemosgreen1 sentence2000Even though several of our more recent cases on this subject have not raised or mentioned the Handy/Amaral procedure as a prerequisite to the admissibility of whether a witness or an accused has taken intoxicating substances, see, e.g., State v. Lemos, 743 A.2d 558, 563 (R.I.2000) (per curiam) (noting that the admission of evidence concerning the witnesses’ consumption of alcoholic beverages may have been helpful to the defendant’s case without adverting to the Handy/Amaral doctrine); State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632 (R.I.1989); State v. Catrera, 528 A.2d 331 (R.I.1987); but see Kay v. Menard, 754 | 1 | 1 |
Morreale v. Princegreen2 sentences1974The Pennsylvania court sees no “functional difference” between the two and holds that either one “* * * give[s] rise to the insidious inference that the individual involved was intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol * * *." Morreale v. Prince, 436 Pa. 51, 53 , 258 A.2d 508, 508-09 (1969). 1974The Pennsylvania court sees no “functional difference” between the two and holds that either one “* * * give[s] rise to the insidious inference that the individual involved was intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol * * *." Morreale v. Prince, 436 Pa. 51, 53 , 258 A.2d 508, 508-09 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kay v. Menardgreen2 sentences2000Even though several of our more recent cases on this subject have not raised or mentioned the Handy/Amaral procedure as a prerequisite to the admissibility of whether a witness or an accused has taken intoxicating substances, see, e.g., State v. Lemos, 743 A.2d 558, 563 (R.I.2000) (per curiam) (noting that the admission of evidence concerning the witnesses’ consumption of alcoholic beverages may have been helpful to the defendant’s case without adverting to the Handy/Amaral doctrine); State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632 (R.I.1989); State v. Catrera, 528 A.2d 331 (R.I.1987); but see Kay v. Menard, 754 2000Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2000Even though several of our more recent cases on this subject have not raised or mentioned the Handy/Amaral procedure as a prerequisite to the admissibility of whether a witness or an accused has taken intoxicating substances, see, e.g., State v. Lemos, 743 A.2d 558, 563 (R.I.2000) (per curiam) (noting that the admission of evidence concerning the witnesses’ consumption of alcoholic beverages may have been helpful to the defendant’s case without adverting to the Handy/Amaral doctrine); State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632 (R.I.1989); State v. Catrera, 528 A.2d 331 (R.I.1987); but see Kay v. Menard, 754 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Carrera
green
1 sentence2000Even though several of our more recent cases on this subject have not raised or mentioned the Handy/Amaral procedure as a prerequisite to the admissibility of whether a witness or an accused has taken intoxicating substances, see, e.g., State v. Lemos, 743 A.2d 558, 563 (R.I.2000) (per curiam) (noting that the admission of evidence concerning the witnesses’ consumption of alcoholic beverages may have been helpful to the defendant’s case without adverting to the Handy/Amaral doctrine); State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632 (R.I.1989); State v. Catrera, 528 A.2d 331 (R.I.1987); but see Kay v. Menard, 754 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.