Snipes v. State

Decision Date28 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 274S45,274S45
PartiesRobert S. SNIPES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Rice & VanStone, William E. Weikert, Evansville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

Appellant has petitioned this Court to grant transfer from a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming his conviction of the offense of armed robbery.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals contains the erroneous statement that 'robbery is not a 'specific intent' crime.'

This Court has recently stated that all of the common law malum in se crimes have always included the mens rea as an element. Gregory v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 67, 34 Ind.Dec. 593.

The question in the case at bar arose because of the giving of the State's Tendered Instruction No. 3 which reads as follows:

'Voluntary use of drugs will not excuse crime. If the defendant was using drugs it was his own fault and he cannot claim any immunity by reason of such use. It was his duty to keep from using drugs, and if he voluntarily permitted himself to become intoxicated from drugs, and while so intoxicated commited the crime charged, he is guilty and should be punished precisely the same as though he had been sober. It is not the law that a man may voluntarily become intoxicated and commit crime and escape punishment by reason of such intoxication. One cannot use his own voluntary intoxication to escape the consequences of his acts while so intoxicated.'

The above instruction was taken from the case of Madden v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 628, 632, 261 N.E.2d 847, 22 Ind.Dec. 591, where this Court quoted the above language with approval.

The correct statement of the law in Indiana concerning voluntary intoxication as a defense was set out in Emler v. State (1972), Ind., 286 N.E.2d 408, 412, 32 Ind.Dec. 337, 341, and reads as follows:

'Normally voluntary intoxication is not a defense in a criminal proceeding. In order for intoxication to relieve appellant from responsibility the crime charged must have involved specific intent and he must have been so intoxicated as to be incapable of entertaining the required specific intent.'

The Madden case is, therefore, specifically overruled for the reason that the above quoted instruction therein approved is erroneous in that it fails to state that intoxication may be a defense, if the defendant was so intoxicated as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Greider v. Duckworth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 11, 1983
    ...specific intent. Bates v. State, 409 N.E.2d 623, 625 (Ind.1980), citing Larkin v. State, 393 N.E.2d 180 (Ind.1979); Snipes v. State, 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470 (1974). See also James v. State, 265 Ind. 384, 354 N.E.2d 236 The court in Carter v. State, 408 N.E.2d 790, 799 (Ind.App.1980), n......
  • Carter v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 11, 1980
    ...(" '(C)onviction for the crime of robbery . . . requires proof only of general criminal intent and knowledge.' ") with Snipes v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470 (reverses Court of Appeals decision which held "robbery is not a 'specific intent' crime"); and Ashbaugh v. State, (198......
  • Murphy v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 10, 1976
    ...State, (1903) 161 Ind. 288, 68 N.E. 286. Neither of these cases states the rule in the absolute terms offered here. In Snipes v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 581, 307 N.E.2d 470, this Court was faced with a petition for transfer in which the trial court and the Court of Appeals approved an instru......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 7, 1975
    ...908; Dawson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 324 N.E.2d 839; Snipes v. State (1973), Ind.App., 298 N.E.2d 503 (reversed on other grounds, Ind., 307 N.E.2d 470). Cf. Winston v. State (1975), Ind., 323 N.E.2d 228. And this court will not reweigh the evidence to reach a different conclusion. Smith v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT