State v. Souza’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Furthermore, we find that voluntary intoxication is a “gratuitous” defense and not a constitutionally protected defense to criminal conduct. Voluntary intoxication does not result from a disease or defect of the mind, but rather from a state that is voluntarily self-induced. Therefore, the legislature’s decision to prohibit the use of self-induced intoxication as a defense does not implicate any recognized constitutional rights. The legislature was entitled to redefine the mens rea element of crimes and to exclude evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate state of mind.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Birdsall · Montana v. Egelhoff

2. “(1) Self-induced intoxication is prohibited as a defense to any offense, except as specifically provided in this section. (2) Evidence of the nonself-induced or pathological intoxication of the defendant shall be admissible to prove or negative the conduct alleged or the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense. Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is admissible to prove or negative conduct or to prove state of mind sufficient to establish an element of an offense. Evidence of self-induced intoxication of the defendant is not admissible to negative the state of mind sufficient to establish an element of the offense. (3) Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect within the meaning of section 704-400. (4) Intoxication which (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is a defense if by reason of such intoxication the defendant at the time of the defendant’s conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its wrongfulness or to conform the defendant’s conduct to the requirements of law. (5) In this section: (a) “Intoxication” means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body; (b) “Self-induced intoxication” means intoxication caused by substances which the defendant knowingly introduces into the defendant’s body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication the defendant knows or ought to know, unless the defendant”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Eager.

3. “The legislature, in amending § 702-230, clearly indicated that the purpose of the statute as amended is to prevent defendants who willingly become intoxicated and then commit crimes from using self-induced intoxication as a defense.[ 5 ] [[Image here]] Furthermore, we find that voluntary intoxication is a “gratuitous” defense and not a constitutionally protected defense to criminal conduct.[ 6 ] [[Image here]] The legislature was entitled to redefine the mens rea element of crimes and to exclude evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate state of mind.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Birdsall