C. H. BARNES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

WALTER W. CARR, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

• Preston v. State, 444 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1984)
  …g and continued use of “intoxicants” which would produce a “fixed and settled frenzy or insanity either permanent or intermittent.” 201 So. 2d 709 (citations omitted). See also Askew v. State, 118 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1960); Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187 (1913). But, when a single instance or episode of voluntary intoxication impairs a defendant’s judgment and ability to distinguish between right and wrong it will not support the complete defense of insanity- The burden is on the defendant to place…
• Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
  …gnizes insanity super-induced by the long and continued use of intoxicants so as to produce “a fixed and settled frenzy or insanity either permanent or intermittent.” Garner v. State, 1891, 28 Fla. 113, 9 So. 835; Cochran v. State, 1913, 65 Fla. 91, 61 So. 187; and Britts v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So. 2d 363. This condition was not found in Cirack. Dr. Estes opinion could only go to proving the defense of voluntary intoxication, not insanity. While not a complete defense, voluntary intoxication is…
• Hall v. State, 78 Fla. 420 (Fla. 1919)
  …dence submitted to the jury for their determination, the question whether the accused at the time of the unlawful act with which he was charged, had a sufficient degree of reason to know that he was doing an act that was wrong. See Cochran v. State, 65 Fla. 91, 61 South. Rep. 187; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 South. Rep. 822; Copeland v. State, 41 Fla. 320, 26 South. Rep. 319. In the Davis case, supra, this court adopted the rule laid down in McNaghten’s case, 10 Clark and Finley, *199, text pp. 209-21…