People v. Martinez
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 1999 case, the court ruled that evidence of defendant’s voluntary intoxication was inadmissible to negate criminal intent in a child endangerment case involving methamphetamine manufacturing.

1999 | State Juristiction

People v. Martinez

Keywords 1999 case; child endangerment; methamphetamine manufacturing; criminal intent; voluntary intoxication; inadmissible evidence; court ruling; defendant; drug manufacturing; legal case
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The 1999 ruling established the inadmissibility of evidence pertaining to the defendant's voluntary intoxication in a child endangerment case specifically involving methamphetamine production. The court's decision rejected the argument that voluntary intoxication could negate the requisite criminal intent.

Open Case as PDF

1999 Child Endangerment Case Ruling

The 1999 court decision established the inadmissibility of evidence pertaining to the defendant's voluntary intoxication as a defense against charges of criminal intent in a methamphetamine manufacturing case resulting in child endangerment. The court's reasoning, while not explicitly stated in this summary, likely centered on the principle that voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal culpability. This ruling underscores the stringent legal standards applied to cases involving the manufacture of illegal substances where children are placed at risk. The defendant's state of mind, even if impaired by voluntary intoxication, did not negate the demonstrable danger to the child. This case serves as a precedent highlighting the limitations of using voluntary intoxication as a defense in such serious offenses.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A 1999 court case determined that a defendant's admission of voluntary drug use couldn't be used as a defense against charges of child endangerment related to methamphetamine production.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 1999, a court decided that a person couldn't use being drunk or high as an excuse for hurting a child while making meth. The court said that being intoxicated wasn't a valid reason to avoid punishment.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

84 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 (1999)

Highlights