WILLIAM ALEXANDER MCCAULEY
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to criminal charges under Florida law, and evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissible to show lack of specific intent or insanity, except when a controlled substance was lawfully prescribed and taken as directed.
[1] Under Florida Statute section 775.051, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any criminal offense, and evidence of voluntary intoxication is inadmissible to show lac…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law.”
Florida Statute section 775.051(2)(a) establishing the general rule against voluntary intoxication defenses
William Alexander McCauley was convicted at trial in Miami-Dade County. The trial court excluded evidence of the defendant's voluntary intoxication.…
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 Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (2021) (“Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law. Evidence of a defendant’s voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of a controlled substance under chapter 893 was pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to the defendant by a practitioner as defined in s.
893.02.”) See also Fl. Std. J. Inst. (Crim.) 3.6(e)(1) and 3.6(e)(2) (providing that the defense of involuntary intoxication requires a showing that the substance was lawfully prescribed by a practitioner and that defendant used the prescription “as it was prescribed and directed by the practitioner.”);
Cobb v. State, 884 So. 2d 437, 438-39 (Fla 1st DCA 2004) (“The Legislature expressly limited the use of an intoxication defense to those circumstance where the defendant's lack of specific intent or insanity is attributable to the use of a prescription medicine ‘pursuant to a lawful prescription.’ In this instance, the statutory language is ‘clear and unambiguous,’ and must therefore ‘be given its plain and ordinary meaning.’”) (quoting Dep't of Educ.
v. Cooper, 858 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)); id. at 439 (providing
1997)).
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brancaccio v. State, 698 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Fla. Dep't OF Educ. v. Cooper, 858 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Cobb v. State, 884 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)