ELLEN MARIE CUC, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court did not violate due process by excluding the defense of voluntary intoxication pursuant to section 775.051, Florida Statutes.
Appellant was excluded from raising the defense of voluntary intoxication in a criminal case. The trial court relied on section 775.051, Florida Statu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actus Reus cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
The seminal issue raised by appellant, Ellen Marie Cue, is that the trial court violated her right to due process of law under the Florida and United States Constitutions when it excluded the defense of voluntary intoxication pursuant to section 775.051, Florida Statutes (2000). We affirm.
Appellant acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court held in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996), that a Montana statute similar to Florida’s 775.051 did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In Egelhoff, after concluding that the voluntary intoxication defense is not a fundamental right of a criminal defendant, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“The doctrines of actus reus, mens rea, insanity, mistake, justification, and duress have historically provided the tools for a constantly shifting adjustment of the tension between the evolving aims of the criminal law and changing religious, moral, philosophical, and medical views of the nature of man. This process of adjustment has always been thought to be the province of the States.” Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 535-536, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2156, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (plurality opinion). The people of Montana have decided to resurrect the rule of an earlier era, disallowing consideration of voluntary intoxication when a defendant’s state of mind is at issue. Nothing in the Due Process Clause prevents them from doing so, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana to the contrary must be reversed.
Id. at 56, 116 S.Ct. 2013.
As in Egelhoff, the people of the State of Florida have decided to resurrect the rule that intoxication is not a defense to specific intent crimes. See § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (2000). We accordingly affirm. We also affirm as to the second issue raised by appellant.
AFFIRMED.
POLEN, C.J., and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Troy v. State, 948 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2006)…tate is a ‘fundamental principle of justice.’ ” Id. at 43, 116 S.Ct. 2013. In Florida, two appellate decisions have addressed and upheld the constitutionality of section 775.051. See Barrett v. State, 862 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cuc v. State, 834 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Cue, the defendant alleged that she was denied her right to due process of law under section 775.051 because she was not allowed to raise a defense of voluntary intoxication. 834 So. 2d at 378. In affirming her conviction, th…
-
Smith v. State, 28 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2009)…al challenges to section 775.051 and relied on Egelhoff in their analyses: In Florida, two appellate decisions have addressed and upheld the constitutionality of section 775.051. See Barrett v. State, 862 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cuc v. State, 834 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In Cuc, the defendant alleged that she was denied her right to due process of law under section 775.051 because she was not allowed to raise a defense of voluntary intoxication. 834 So. 2d at 378. In affirming her conviction, th…
-
Barrett v. State, 862 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…der and could not be considered when determining whether Barrett acted with premeditation. In a recent decision, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that section 775.051 does not violate federal or Florida due process guarantees. Cuc v. State, 834 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 847 So. 2d 975 (Fla.2003). The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996), which held that a similar Montana statute does not…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1968)
- Pope v. United States, 392 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1968)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1996)