(a) As used in this Section: (1) “intoxication” means an impairment of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of alcohol, drugs or other substances into the body. (2) “self-induced intoxication” means intoxication caused by substances which the person knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would otherwise afford a defense to a charge of crime. (b) Except as provided in Subsection (d), intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge. Evidence of intoxication is admissible whenever it is relevant to negate or to establish an element of the offense charged. (c) A person is culpable with respect to an element of the offense, even though his disregard thereof is not conscious, if his not being conscious thereof is due to self-induced intoxication. (d) Intoxication which is not self-induced is an affirmative defense if, by reason of such intoxication, the person at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its wrongfulness or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. For purposes of this Section, intoxication caused by or attributed to addiction, substance use disorder (SUD), dependence, habituation or any other compulsion that is attributed to prior uses of alcohol, drugs or other substances is self-induced intoxication and cannot be asserted as an affirmative defense for lack of substantial capacity either to appreciate its wrongfulness or to conform conduct to the requirements of the law.
COL 2026-04-23
SOURCE: Guam PC § 22; M.P.C. § 2.08; Cal. § 510 (T.D. 1, 1967); Cal § 545 (1971); *Mass. ch. 263, § 25 N.J. § 2C:2-8. Subsections (c), (d) amended by P.L. 38-094:2 (Feb. 11, 2026). CROSS-REFERENCES: § 4.30, this Code. COMMENT: The Commission believes that § 7.58 retains the substance of existing law, restating it in a form based on the Model Penal Code and New Jersey and Massachusetts proposals. We note, however, that this approach was criticized in California and a proposal was made there to follow New York and treat intoxication as indistinguishable from any other condition of mind relevant to the existence of Mens Rea. No doubt the latter is the logical approach. It was rejected by the draftsmen of the Model Penal Code “because of the weight of the prevailing law and because they concluded that one that becomes so drunk as to destroy his powers of perception and judgment, engages in conduct without any social value when compared with the resulting risk of danger.” They also felt that departure from the existing law would create serious problems of proof. What this Section does is state that intoxication is not a defense but the fact, and degree of, intoxication is relevant to the issue of mental capacity when purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element of the crime. It should be noted that an “unconscious” act due to intoxication is treated as an exception to the voluntary act requirement of § 4.15 of this Code.