This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Harris (D), Jack Tipton and several other friends were playing cards and drinking alcohol at a friend’s house. Tipton offered to drive D home. Tipton testified that D became angry when Tipton refused to go to the District of Columbia and that D forcibly removed Tipton from the car and drove away. Tipton reported the car as stolen. D was indicted for an unlawful taking of a motor vehicle in violation of Art. 27, § 342A, and second-degree assault in violation of Art. 27, § 12A. At trial, D’s defense was voluntary intoxication. He testified that he had consumed alcohol and smoked marijuana throughout the evening and that he “blacked out” after leaving the get-together. D requested a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication, arguing that he was too intoxicated from drugs and alcohol to form the specific intent required for the offenses of carjacking and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The trial court instructed the jury that when charged with an offense requiring specific intent, a defendant cannot be guilty if he was so intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol that he was unable to form the necessary intent. The court further instructed the jury that the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle was the only offense that required specific intent. As to the offense of carjacking, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: An individual is guilty of carjacking when that individual obtains unauthorized possession or control of a motor vehicle from another individual in actual possession by force or violence, or by putting that individual in fear through intimidation or threat of force or violence. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.