Connection lost
Server error
Montana v. Egelhoff Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Montana law barred juries from considering a defendant’s voluntary intoxication to negate the required mental state for a crime. The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding it did not violate due process because the right to present such evidence is not a fundamental principle of justice.
Legal Significance: The case affirms a state’s broad authority to define the elements of a crime and to limit defenses. It establishes that excluding evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea does not violate the Due Process Clause, reviving a traditional common-law approach to criminal responsibility.
Montana v. Egelhoff Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent James Egelhoff was found in a station wagon with his two companions, who were both dead from single gunshots to the head. Egelhoff was alive but extremely intoxicated, with a blood-alcohol content of .36%. His handgun, with two empty casings, was found in the car, and he had gunshot residue on his hands. Egelhoff was charged with two counts of “deliberate homicide,” which under Montana law requires the state to prove that he acted “purposely” or “knowingly.” At trial, Egelhoff claimed his extreme intoxication rendered him physically incapable of the crime and unable to recall the events. However, pursuant to Montana Code Annotated § 45-2-203, the jury was instructed that it could not consider his “intoxicated condition… in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of the offense.” The jury convicted him. The Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding the statute violated the Due Process Clause by preventing the jury from considering relevant evidence on an essential element of the crime.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state statute that prohibits a jury from considering a defendant’s voluntary intoxication when determining the existence of the requisite mens rea for a criminal offense violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. A Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state statute that prohibits a jury from considering a defendant’s voluntary intoxication when determining the existence of the requisite mens rea for a criminal offense violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision grants states significant latitude to determine the substantive elements of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehe
Legal Rule
The Due Process Clause does not require states to allow a criminal Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in c
Legal Analysis
The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, reasoned that the right to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A state statute that prevents a jury from considering a defendant’s