Skip to main content

State v. Privett

Citations

  • 717 P.2d 55
  • 104 N.M. 79

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that lay jurors are capable of assessing matters within their common knowledge and experience
  • holding that the defendant was entitled to intoxication defense where there was evidence that the defendant was confused and appeared intoxicated near the time of the crime
  • holding that a defendant is entitled to an intoxication defense where there is 6 evidence that the defendant was confused and appeared intoxicated near the time of 7 the crime
  • stating that in a charge of murder a jury must consider the effect of intoxication upon a defendant’s “state of mind”
  • stating that in a charge of murder a jury must consider the effect of intoxication upon a defendant's \state of mind\
  • holding intoxication to a degree that made specific intent impossible was a valid defense to a charge of willful, premeditated, first-degree murder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Walters, Sosa, Federici, Riordan, Stowers

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.