Mauldin v. State

351 So. 2d 753
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1977
DocketNo. FF-413
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 351 So. 2d 753 (Mauldin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Mauldin v. State
382 So. 2d 844 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 So. 2d 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauldin-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.