 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
KENNEDY v. STATE10/1/1973
y similar to the conflict in the evidence in the case at bar and in that case the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said:
"Appellant contends that at the time his confession was taken he was too intoxicated to understand the constitutional warnings, thereby rendering involuntary his waiver and subsequent statement. The fact that an accused has been drinking does not automatically invalidate his subsequent incriminating statements. The test is whether he had sufficient mental capacity at the time of giving his statement to know what he was saying and to have voluntarily intended to say it. Recent inbibing of the existence of a hangover does not make his confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded it. See United States v. Martin, 434 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1970); United States v. Kershner,
432 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1980); 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (12th Ed.) 388 (Cum. Supp. 1970)."
The same question was presented to the Wyoming Supreme Court in Lonquest v. State, 495 P.2d 575. In admitting the confession in that case the court pointed out that no confession or statement should be received unless the maker was capable or realizing what he was saying and not suffering from delusions or hallucinations, so that he knowingly, understandingly,, and comprehendingly made the statement. The court pointed out, however, that the judge first and the jury are the only possible available instruments by which such determination can reasonably be made. The Wyoming Court then applied the general rule quoting from People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, as follows:
"`The general rule applicable to confessions obtained from persons under intoxication has been well stated to the effect that `proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt of crime will not, without more, bar the reception of the confession in evidence. But if it is shown that the accused was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements, then the confession is inadmissible.' * * *'"
See also People v. Dagge, 295 N.E.2d 336; State v. McClure, 185 S.E.2d 693.
The judgment is affirmed.
|