Caroline Milam
Diminished Capacity
James Doorly
Psych 3
Montana vs. Egelhoff, Ibn-Tamas vs. US
One summer night in 1992, James Allen Egelhoff was camping in the northwestern region of Montana picking mushrooms. While on his camping trip he made friends with two other men, Roberta Pavlova and John Christenson, whom were scavenging for mushrooms and camping as well. Quickly the three became acquainted and after collecting and selling their mushroom findings they spent the rest of their day drinking together. It is reported that they drank at a collective of bars and also at a private party located in Troy, Montana. Around 9pm that evening the three were reported to have left together in Christenson’s 1974 Ford wagon where they continued to …show more content…
Egelhoff. Ann German represented the respondent, and the petitioner (Montana) was represented by Joseph Mazurek. At the end of the trial, Egelhoff was charged with two counts of “premeditated murder”. Which in Montana is a crime essentially defined by knowing that you are purposely committing a murder (LLI, 3). The legal issues in question here was if Egelhoff’s voluntary intoxication could or could not nullify the necessary mental state for one to commit homicide. Egelhoff appealed his conviction by stating he was violated of his Due Process Rights because he was not allowed to present all the evidence. He believed himself that an unknown fourth subject must have committed those horrendous murders because he himself did not remember committing the crimes. He also claimed that his level of intoxication rendered himself physically incapable of actually carrying out the act of shooting two people in the head (LLI 4). His blood alcohol content was reported being at .36. Just to be clear, and emphasize how drunk this man was, the level of surgical anesthesia is .35. Loss of consciousness is likely with a BAC of that level (McDonald, James) . He was lucky he was not in a coma or dead before the officers showed up. The jury was told that in accordance with Montana Code Ann. Section(s) 45-2-203, Egelhoff’s level of intoxication could not be considered when determining his mental state at the time of the
Diminished Capacity
James Doorly
Psych 3
Montana vs. Egelhoff, Ibn-Tamas vs. US
One summer night in 1992, James Allen Egelhoff was camping in the northwestern region of Montana picking mushrooms. While on his camping trip he made friends with two other men, Roberta Pavlova and John Christenson, whom were scavenging for mushrooms and camping as well. Quickly the three became acquainted and after collecting and selling their mushroom findings they spent the rest of their day drinking together. It is reported that they drank at a collective of bars and also at a private party located in Troy, Montana. Around 9pm that evening the three were reported to have left together in Christenson’s 1974 Ford wagon where they continued to …show more content…
Egelhoff. Ann German represented the respondent, and the petitioner (Montana) was represented by Joseph Mazurek. At the end of the trial, Egelhoff was charged with two counts of “premeditated murder”. Which in Montana is a crime essentially defined by knowing that you are purposely committing a murder (LLI, 3). The legal issues in question here was if Egelhoff’s voluntary intoxication could or could not nullify the necessary mental state for one to commit homicide. Egelhoff appealed his conviction by stating he was violated of his Due Process Rights because he was not allowed to present all the evidence. He believed himself that an unknown fourth subject must have committed those horrendous murders because he himself did not remember committing the crimes. He also claimed that his level of intoxication rendered himself physically incapable of actually carrying out the act of shooting two people in the head (LLI 4). His blood alcohol content was reported being at .36. Just to be clear, and emphasize how drunk this man was, the level of surgical anesthesia is .35. Loss of consciousness is likely with a BAC of that level (McDonald, James) . He was lucky he was not in a coma or dead before the officers showed up. The jury was told that in accordance with Montana Code Ann. Section(s) 45-2-203, Egelhoff’s level of intoxication could not be considered when determining his mental state at the time of the