Doctor John T. MacDonald Foundation v. Overstreet

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of malice to sustain defendant’s conviction for third-degree murder
• concluding that defendant's actions constituted malice where defendant huffed an illicit drug both immediately prior to and while operating vehicle on public highway, knowing from experience effects were immediate and debilitating
• stating that “the mens rea generally associated with the decision to drive under the influence is ordinary recklessness and does not constitute malice.”
• stating that “the decision to drive while under the influence of alcohol and/or a controlled substance does not, standing alone, constitute malice.” (emphasis added)
• concluding the appellant acted with malice when she chose to drive while intoxicated, where her previous use of the same intoxicant resulted in loss of consciousness
• stating that “a person who acts negligently or with ordinary recklessness to cause a person to suffer serious bodily injury … has not committed … aggravated assault”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).