recognizing that intoxication necessary to negate specific intent must amount to insanity
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that intoxication necessary to negate specific intent must amount to insanity
- “Had an instruction been requested that would have conflicted with defense strategy, there is no error in the trial court’s failure to give the instruction.”
- McWhorter’s theory that he was intoxicated was unreasonable based, in part, upon the fact that no evidence presented at trial corrob orated this claim
- “the other evidence as to [McWhorter’s] condition at the time of the crime was totally consistent with the proposition that he was sober”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur in the main opinion in part and join Justice Johnstone in his discussion of issues XXVI and XXVII.