People v. Hari

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that involuntary intoxication instruction should have been given based on testimony of expert who had interviewed defendant
• holding that involuntary intoxication instruction should have been given based on testimony of expert who had interviewed defendant
• noting that a reviewing court, after ordering a new trial, may address other issues that are likely to arise during the retrial
• recognizing, for the first time, that an involuntary intoxication defense may be based on an unexpected and unwarned side effect of prescribed medication
• refusing to look at committee comments to statute in interpreting the phrase “involuntarily intoxicated” because the meaning was plain from the language of the statute
• refusing to look at committee comments to statute in interpreting the phrase “involuntarily intoxicated” because the meaning was plain from the language of the statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).