Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee· 10/2/1979

Harrell v. State

Citations

593 S.W.2d 664
1979 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 304

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “[p]roof of intoxication alone is not a defense to a charge of committing a specific intent crime”
finding no variance when the indictment alleged that the defendant stole money from a supermarket cashier although the supermarket owner actually owned the money
In order for a defendant to rely upon voluntary intoxication as a defense, “[t]he determinative question is not whether [he] was intoxicated, but what was his mental capacity.”
“Proof of intoxication alone is not a defense to a charge of committing a specific intent crime . . . there must be evidence that the intoxication deprived the accused of the mental capacity to form specific intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tatum, Cornelius, Beasley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.