Member
| It sounds like the defendant is saying "I admit I smoked dope but it was so much earlier in the day so it couldn't have contributed to my later intoxication." Perhaps the defendant should produce an expert to back up this claim that the effects of the drug would have subsided? If the language of the indictment tracks the language of the statute then you can win by proving impairment due to alcohol, drugs, or both. quote: "Intoxicated" means: (A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body
Its not like this is a burglary or something where evidence of the defendant using intoxicating drugs earlier in the same day where the prejudice outweighs the probative. Intoxication is the core element! Oh well, I'm not a lawyer. |
| |
Member
| For an interesting case on that subject, refer to Nevada V. Jessica Williams. You can also find information on this case at www.courttv.com. Go to the archives and it will lead you there. |
| Posts: 4 | Location: Tx,USA | Registered: September 01, 2004 |
IP
|
|