In Thompson v. State, 503 So.2d at 881, this Court found that voluntary intoxication would not constitute the mitigating circumstance that the defendant's capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired, for purposes of a capital sentencing proceeding, where the defendant did not show that he was so intoxicated as to render himself incapable of appreciating his conduct.Summary of this case from Kuenzel v. State
February 20, 1987.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals (6 Div. 799).
B.J. McPherson and John J. Dobson, Oneonta, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little and Mary Ellen Forehand, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Having considered the record, briefs, and oral argument in this case, this Court holds that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals must be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
All the Justices concur.