Gourley v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[voluntary intoxication does not negate culpability for a crime requiring a culpable mental state of wantonness or recklessness, but it does negate specific intent[]”
• “Voluntary intoxication does not negate culpability for a crime requiring a culpable mental state of wantonness or recklessness, but it does negate specific intent.”
• “Voluntary intoxication does not negate culpability for a crime requiring a culpable mental state of wantonness or recklessness . . . .”
• “KRS 532.080(2) and (3) require proof of the fact of ‘previous felony convictions’ and not their underlying validity.”
• “KRS 532.080(2) and (3) require proof of the fact of ‘previous felony convictions’ and not their underlying validity.”
• “Intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a defense to an intentional crime if the effect of the intoxication is to completely negate the element of intent . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).