Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

§ 133. Degree of drunkenness. Voluntary drunkenness is no defense, even when a specific intent or a guilty knowledge is an essential element of the crime charged, unless the accused was so drunk as to be mentally incapable of entertaining the requisite intent, or of possessing the requisite knowledge. It is only material when it negatives the existence of such intent or knowledge.98 So the fact of drunkenness will not prevent a homicide from being murder in the first degree or reduce it from murder to manslaughter, if it was in fact committed wilfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly, but it may be proved, and is entitled to weight in so far only as it tends to show that the accused was not in such a state of mind as to be capable of acting with the intent, deliberation and premeditation necessary to constitute the higher offense.99 In all such cases proof

98 United States. United States v. Roudenbush, Baldw. 514, Fed. Cas. No. 16,198.

Alabama. Brown v. State, 142 Ala. 287, 38 So. 268; White v. State, 103 Ala. 72, 16 So. 63; Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47, 9 So. 607.

[ocr errors]

Delaware. State v. Bacon, Del. 112 Atl. 682; State v. Truitt, 5 Pennew. 466, 62 Atl. 790; State v. Di Guglielmo, 4 Pennew. 336, 55 Atl. 350; State v. Kavanaugh, 4 Pennew. 131, 53 Atl. 335.

Georgia. Walker v. State, 9 Ga. App. 863, 72 S. E. 446.

Indiana. Booher v. State, 156 Ind. 435, 60 N. E. 156, 54 L. R. A. 391; Aszman v. State, 123 Ind. 347, 24 N. E. 123, 8 L. R. A. 33.

Kentucky. Brennon v. Com., 169 Ky. 815, 185 S. W. 489.

[blocks in formation]

Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79 S. E. 883;
State v. English, 164 N. C. 497, 80
S. E. 72; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C.
614, 72 S. E. 1075.

Oklahoma. Collier V. State,
Okla. Cr. - 186 Pac. 963.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Detweiler, 229 Pa. 304, 78 Atl. 271; Com. v. Snyder, 224 Pa. 526, 73 Atl. 910; Com. v. Eyler, 217 Pa. 512, 66 Atl. 746, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 10 Ann. Cas. 786.

Rhode Island. State v. Vanasse, 42 R. I. 278, 107 Atl. 85.

Texas. Darity v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 546, 43 S. W. 982; Reagan v. State, 28 Tex. App. 227, 12 S. W. 601, 19 Am. St. Rep. 833.

West Virginia. State v. Phillips, 80 W. Va. 748, 93 S. E. 828, L. R. A. 1918 A 1164.

99 Alabama. Waldrop v. State, 185 Ala. 20, 64 So. 80; Morrison v. State, 84 Ala. 405, 4 So. 402. People v. Belencia, 21

California.

Cal. 544.
Connecticut.
Conn. 92.

Hamlin v. State, 48

District of Columbia. Sabens V. United States, 40 App. Cas. 440. Florida. Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232. Indiana. Aszman v. State, 123 Ind.

of drunkenness does not negative the existence of the necessary specific intent as a matter of law, but merely makes a question for the jury as to whether the defendant's mental condition was such that he was capable of entertaining such intent.1

[blocks in formation]

86 Ky. 110, 5 S. W. 358; Shannahan v. Com., 8 Bush 463, 8 Am. Rep. 465; Curry v. Com., 2 Bush 67.

Louisiana. State v. Trivas, 32 La. Ann. 1086, 36 Am. Rep. 293.

New Jersey. Wilson v. State, 60 N. J. L. 171, 37 Atl. 954, 38 Atl. 428; Warner v. State, 56 N. J. L. 686, 29 Atl. 505, 44 Am. St. Rep. 415. New Mexico. State v. Cooley, 19 N. M. 91, 140 Pac. 1111, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 230.

New York. People v. Pekarz, 185 N. Y. 470, 78 N. E. 294; People v. Krist, 168 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 1057; People v. Leonardi, 143 N. Y. 360, 38 N. E. 372; People v. Mills, 98 N. Y. 176.

North Carolina. State v. Foster, 172 N. C. 960, 90 S. E. 785; State v. Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79 S. E. 883; State v. English, 164 N. C. 497, 80 S. E. 72; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C. 614, 72 S. E. 1075; State v. Kale, 124 N. C. 816, 32 S. E. 892.

Oklahoma. Chambers v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 238, 182 Pac. 714; Tubby v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 496, 178 Pac. 491; Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 566, 149 Pac. 919, L. R. A. 1915 E 1031.

Oregon. State v. Morris, 83 Ore. 429, 163 Pac. 567.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Detweiler, 229 Pa. 304, 78 Atl. 271; Com. v. Eyler, 217 Pa. 512, 66 Atl. 746, 11

L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 10 Ann. Cas. 786; Com. v. Dudash, 204 Pa. 124, 53 Atl. 756; Com. v. McGowan, 189 Pa. St. 641, 42 Atl. 365, 69 Am. St. Rep. 836; Com. v. Cleary, 148 Pa. St. 26, 23 Atl. 1110; Com. v. Cleary, 135 Pa. St. 64, 19 Atl. 1017, 8 L. R. A. 301. Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031; Pirtle v. State, 9 Humph. 663.

Virginia. Hite v. Com., 96 Va. 489, 31 S. E. 895.

Washington. State v. Hawkins, 23 Wash. 289, 63 Pac. 258.

West Virginia. State v. Welch, 36 W. Va. 690, 15 S. E. 419; State v.. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799.

Wisconsin. Hempton v. State, 111 Wis. 127, 86 N. W. 596; Bernhardt v. State, 82 Wis. 23, 51 N. W. 1009.

That one is in an abnormal mental condition due to a spree from which he is just recovering is not a defense and will not reduce the grade of a homicide, where he is able to distinguish right from wrong and to form the deliberate and malicious intent to kill hecessary to constitute murder in the first degree. Myers v. United States, 256 Fed. 779.

"The intoxication need not be to the extent of depriving the accused of all power of volition or of all ability to form an intent." People v. Corey, 148 N. Y. 476, 42 N. E. 1066; People v. Leonardi, 143 N. Y. 360, 38 N. E. 372.

McLeroy v. State, 120

1 Alabama. Ala. 274, 25 So. 247.

Delaware. State v. Bacon, Del.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

§ 134. Intent formed before becoming drunk. If a person resolves to commit a crime, and then drinks to intoxication and commits the act, the fact of intoxication cannot lessen the degree of the offense, since he specifically intended to commit it. So it is generally held that intoxication will not reduce murder to manslaughter, or prevent a conviction for murder in the first degree 4 under such circumstances, although there is some authority to the contrary.5

One may also be responsible notwithstanding his drunkenness for a crime perpetrated by another pursuant to a conspiracy entered into by him while he was sober.6

§ 135. Homicide cases—In general. "If a person is too drunk to form an intent to kill, he cannot be guilty of any offense for the commission of which such intent is necessary."7 Voluntary drunkenness is not a defense to a prosecution for murder at common law

-, 112 Atl. 682; State v. Kavanaugh,

4 Pennew. 131, 53 Atl. 335.

District of Columbia. Sabens v.
United States, 40 App. Cas. 440.
Indiana. Booher v. State, 156 Ind.
435, 60 N. E. 156, 54 L. R. A. 391.
New Hampshire.
State v. Avery,

44 N. H. 392.

New York. People v. Leonardi, 143 N. Y. 360, 38 N. E. 372.

North Carolina. State v. English, 164 N. C. 497, 80 S. E. 72; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C. 614, 72 S. E. 1075. Oklahoma. Miller v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 55, 130 Pac. 813.

Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031.

And see other cases cited in the preceding notes.

[blocks in formation]

54 L. R. A. 391; Aszman v. State, 123
Ind. 347, 24 N. E. 123, 8 L. R. A. 33;
State v. Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79
S. E. 883.

And see the other cases cited in the following notes:

3 Harris v. Com., 183 Ky. 542, 209 S. W. 509; Marshall v. Com., 141 Ky. 222, 132 S. W. 139, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 379; Tubby v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 496, 178 Pac. 491; Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 566, 149 Pac. 919, L. R. A. 1915 E 1031.

4 Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232; State v. Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79 S. E. 883; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C. 614, 72 S. E. 1075; State v. Kale, 124 N. C. 816, 32 S. E. 892; Willis v. Com., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 929; State v. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799. 5 Sabens v. United States, 40 App. Cas. (D. C.) 440.

6 McLeroy v. State, 120 Ala. 274, 25 So. 247.

7 State v. Rumble, 81 Kan. 16, 105 Pac. 1, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 376.

and neither excuses nor mitigates the offense, since a specific intent to kill is not an essential element of the crime.9

8

According to the weight of authority it may prevent a conviction for murder in the first degree,10 where the statute makes an actual

[blocks in formation]

Mich. 9, 97 Am. Dec. 162.

New York. Flanigan v. People, 86 - N. Y. 554, 40 Am. Rep. 556; People v. Rogers, 18 N. Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 484.

North Carolina. State v. John, 8 Ired. 330, 49 Am. Dec. 396.

South Carolina. State v. Bundy, 24 S. C. 439, 58 Am. Rep. 262.

Texas. Carter v. State, 12 Tex. 500, 62 Am. Dec. 539.

Vermont. State v. Tatro, 50 Vt.

483.

Virginia. Willis v. Com., 32 Gratt.

929.

West Virginia. State v. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799. 9 See § 623, infra.

10 United States. Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164, 38 L. Ed. 112, 14 Sup. Ct. 299; Hopt v. People, 104 U. S. 631, 26 L. Ed. 873.

Alabama. James v. State, 193 Ala. 55, 69 So. 569, Ann. Cas. 1918 B 119.

Arkansas. Byrd v. State, 76 Ark. 286, 88 S. W. 974.

California. People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, 175 Pac. 6; People v. Hill, 123 Cal. 47, 55 Pac. 692; People v. Kloss, 115 Cal. 567, 47 Pac. 459; People v. Vincent, 95 Cal. 425, 30 Pac. 581; People v. Williams, 43 Cal. 344; People v. Belencia, 21 Cal. 544.

Connecticut. State v. Saxon, 87 Conn. 5, 86 Atl. 590; Hamlin v. State, 48 Conn. 92; State v. Johnson, 41 Conn. 584; State v. Johnson, 40 Conn. 136.

Delaware. State v. Faino, 2 Hard. 153, 1 Marv. 492, 41 Atl. 134.

District of Columbia. Sabens v. United States, 40 App. Cas. 440.

Florida. Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420, 83 So. 513; Boyett v. State, 69 Fla. 648, 68 So. 931; Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99, 36 So. 161; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822; Garner v. State, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232.

Indiana. Aszman v. State, 123 Ind. 347, 24 N. E. 123, 8 L. R. A. 33.

Iowa. State v. Wilson, 166 Iowa 309, 144 N. W. 47, 147 N. W. 739; State v. Williams, 122 Iowa 115, 97 N. W. 992.

Kansas. State v. Rumble, 81 Kan. 16, 105 Pac. 1, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 376; State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 Pac. 287, 24 L. R. A. 555.

Kentucky. Shannahan v. Com., 8 Bush 463, 8 Am. Rep. 465.

Louisiana. State v. Trivas, 32 La. Ann. 1086, 36 Am. Rep. 293.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Gilbert, 165 Mass. 45, 42 N. E. 336; Com. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412.

Nebraska. Schlencker v. State, 9 Neb. 241, 1 N. W. 857.

intent to kill or some deliberation and premeditation an essential element of murder in the first degree,11 provided the accused was so drunk as to be mentally incapable of entertaining such an intent, or acting with the required deliberation or premeditation. 12 But there are some holdings to the effect that it will not reduce a homicide below murder in the first degree even under such circumstances.18

New Jersey. Wilson v. State, 60 N. J. L. 171, 37 Atl. 954, 38 Atl. 428; Warner v. State, 56 N. J. L. 686, 29 Atl. 505, 44 Am. St. Rep. 415.

New Mexico. State v. Cooley, 19 N. M. 91, 140 Pac. 1111, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 230.

New York. People v. Gerdvine, 210 N. Y. 184, 104 N. E. 129; People v. Krist, 168 N. Y. 19, 60 N. E. 1057; People v. Corey, 148 N. Y. 476, 42 N. E. 1066; People v. Leonardi, 143 N. Y. 360, 38 N. E. 372; People v. Mills, 98 N. Y. 176.

North Carolina. State v. Foster, 172 N. C. 960, 90 S. E. 785; State v. Shelton, 164 N. C. 513, 79 S. E. 883; State v. English, 164 N. C. 497, 80 S. E. 72; State v. Murphy, 157 N. C. 614, 72 S. E. 1075; State v. Kale, 124 N. C. 816, 32 S. E. 892.

Oklahoma. Perryman v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 500, 159 Pac. 937; Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Cr. 566, 149 Pac. 919, L. R. A. 1915 E 1031.

Oregon. State v. Morris, 83 Ore. 429, 163 Pac. 567; State v. Trapp, 56 Ore. 588, 109 Pac. 1094; State v. Blodgett, 50 Ore. 329, 92 Pac. 820; State v. Weaver, 35 Ore. 415, 58 Pac. 109; State v. Hansen, 25 Ore. 391, 35 Pac. 976, 36 Pac. 296; State v. Zorn, 22 Ore. 591, 30 Pac. 317.

Pennsylvania. Com. v. Detweiler, 229 Pa. 304, 78 Atl. 271; Com. v. Eyler, 217 Pa. 512, 66 Atl. 746, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639, 10 Ann. Cas. 786; Com. v. Dudash, 204 Pa. 124, 53 Atl. 756; Com. v. Cleary, 148 Pa. St. 26, 23 Atl. 1110: Jones v. Com., 75

Pa. St. 403; Keenan v. Com., 44 Pa. St. 55, 84 Am. Dec. 414.

Tennessee. Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 105 S. W. 353, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1031; Haile v. State, 11 Humph. 154; Pirtle v. State, 9 Humph. 663; Lancaster v. State, 2 Lea 575.

Texas. This was true in Texas when the statute divided murder into two degrees. Harris v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 652, 169 S. W. 657; Lyles v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. 621, 142 S. W. 592; Evers v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 318, 20 S. W. 744, 18 L. R. A. 421, 37 Am. St. Rep. 811.

Utah. State v. Dewey, 41 Utah 538, 127 Pac. 275.

Virginia. Longley v. Com., 99 Va. 807, 37 S. E. 339; Willis v. Com., 32 Gratt. 929; Boswell v. Com., 20 Gratt. 860.

Washington. State v. Hawkins, 23 Wash. 289, 63 Pac. 258. West Virginia. State v. Kidwell, 62 W. Va. 466, 59 S. E. 494, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1024; State v. Davis, 52 W. Va. 224, 43 S. E. 99; State V. Welch, 36 W. Va. 690, 15 S. E. 419; State v. Robinson, 20 W. Va. 713, 43 Am. Rep. 799.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »