Bazzle v. State
Maryland Court of Appeals
45 A.3d 166 (2012)
- Written by Kaitlin Pomeroy-Murphy, JD
Facts
Chaz Bazzle (defendant) drank three 40-ounce containers of beer at an apartment with friends and later continued to drink at a local mall. After leaving the mall that night, Bazzle was on the way to a friend’s house when he was stabbed multiple times. When he arrived, his friend Lakita Butler observed that he was bleeding and about to pass out. She called 911, and Bazzle was taken to the hospital, where his blood-alcohol level was measured at .157. Kohlya Eggleston, also at the hospital for stab wounds inflicted that night, saw Bazzle and identified him as his attacker. Eggleston stated that Bazzle had approached him in his car, ordered him to get out, and stabbed him several times. Eggleston added that Bazzle had a weapon wrapped in a shirt around his hand and a bandana covering his face. Bazzle denied stabbing Eggleston and also testified at trial to not remembering certain parts of the night. Bazzle’s request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication was denied. He was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, attempted armed carjacking, and first-degree assault. Bazzle appealed his conviction, arguing that the court erred in denying his requested jury instruction on voluntary intoxication.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Adkins, J.)
Dissent (McDonald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
