Mauldin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mauldin v. State

351 So. 2d 753

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 1977·No. No. FF-413·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

There was no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury that insanity may result from extended and habitual intoxication. Appropriate charges were given on insanity and on intoxication as rendering a person incapable of a crime requiring specific intent. The jury convicted of murder in the first degree, obviously persuaded that appellant intended the death of the deceased. The charge that “voluntary drunkenness or intoxication does not excuse nor justify the commission of a crime” was appropriately qualified, was not confusing, and produced no harmful error.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SMITH, Judge.

There was no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to charge the jury that insanity may result from extended and habitual intoxication. Appropriate charges were given on insanity and on intoxication as rendering a person incapable of a crime requiring specific intent. The jury convicted of murder in the first degree, obviously persuaded that appellant intended the death of the deceased. The charge that “voluntary drunkenness or intoxication does not excuse nor justify the commission of a crime” was appropriately qualified, was not confusing, and produced no harmful error.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Mauldin v. State, 351 So. 2d 753 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

351 So. 2d 753 (Mauldin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related