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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Minneapolis v. Altimusgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g. , Altimus , 238 N.W.2d at 856 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen1 sentence2025See People v. Turner, 680 P.2d 1290, 1291-93 (Colo. App. 1983). 19 affected his behavior on the night in question. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2013People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 783 (Colo.2005). . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Caulleygreen2 sentences2008People v. Caulley, 197 Mich.App. 177, 184 , 494 N.W.2d 853, 857 (1992), is inapposite because the defendant there had asserted additional defenses, including Michigan's version of diminished capacity and insanity, and the defendant was required to show that he met the statutory definition of insanity to establish the defense of involuntary intoxication. 2008People v. Caulley, 197 Mich.App. 177, 184 , 494 N.W.2d 853, 857 (1992), is inapposite because the defendant there had asserted additional defenses, including Michigan's version of diminished capacity and insanity, and the defendant was required to show that he met the statutory definition of insanity to establish the defense of involuntary intoxication. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Harigreen2 sentences2008People v. Hari, 218 Ill.2d 275, 295-96 , 300 Ill.Dec. 91 , 843 N.E.2d 349, 361 (2006), is Hikewise not pertinent because, although the defendant there had been diagnosed with a variety of conditions, including major depression and paranoid personality disorder, the combination of factors that the Illinois Supreme Court focused on in concluding that the defendant had raised an involuntary intoxication defense-medication, plus the defendant's "lack of sleep and alcohol dependency"-did not involve a mental disease or defect. 2008People v. Hari, 218 Ill.2d 275, 295-96 , 300 Ill.Dec. 91 , 843 N.E.2d 349, 361 (2006), is Hikewise not pertinent because, although the defendant there had been diagnosed with a variety of conditions, including major depression and paranoid personality disorder, the combination of factors that the Illinois Supreme Court focused on in concluding that the defendant had raised an involuntary intoxication defense-medication, plus the defendant's "lack of sleep and alcohol dependency"-did not involve a mental disease or defect. | 1 | 1 |
Tacorante v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2002See Tacorante v. People, 624 P.2d 1324, 1327-28 (Colo.1981)(in construing a statute that provides that a person is not criminally responsible for his or her conduct caused by intoxication that is not self-induced, court held that consumption of heroin by an addict causes self-induced, not involuntary, intoxication, and therefore the inability to refrain from drug use, by itself, did not warrant an involuntary intoxication instruction because "[mlere addiction is not sufficient to render the injection of heroin involuntary or unknowing," and that "carrying the appellant's argument to its logica 2002See Tacorante v. People, 624 P.2d 1324, 1327-28 (Colo.1981)(in construing a statute that provides that a person is not criminally responsible for his or her conduct caused by intoxication that is not self-induced, court held that consumption of heroin by an addict causes self-induced, not involuntary, intoxication, and therefore the inability to refrain from drug use, by itself, did not warrant an involuntary intoxication instruction because "[m]ere addiction is not sufficient to render the injection of heroin involuntary or unknowing," and that "carrying the appellant's argument to its logica | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCoy v. People
green
2 sentences2026For Purposes of the Involuntary Intoxication Defense in Section 18-1-804, the Term "Substance" Logically Refers to the Intoxicant that Caused a Person to Be Incapable of Conforming Their Conduct to the Law ¶37 When interpreting a statute, we begin with its plain language and read the statute "as a whole" to give "consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts," i.e., we "read statutory words and phrases in context." McCoy v. People , 2019 CO 44 , ¶¶ 37-38 , 442 P.3d 379 , 389 . 22 ¶38 The crux of the involuntary intoxication defense appears in section 18-1-804(3), which provid 2026For Purposes of the Involuntary Intoxication Defense in Section 18-1-804, the Term "Substance" Logically Refers to the Intoxicant that Caused a Person to Be Incapable of Conforming Their Conduct to the Law ¶37 When interpreting a statute, we begin with its plain language and read the statute "as a whole" to give "consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts," i.e., we "read statutory words and phrases in context." McCoy v. People , 2019 CO 44 , ¶¶ 37-38 , 442 P.3d 379 , 389 . 22 ¶38 The crux of the involuntary intoxication defense appears in section 18-1-804(3), which provid | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.