Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-3-2 (2026)
Intoxication.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(a) Intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section. However, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense charged.
(b) When recklessness establishes an element of an offense and the actor is unaware of a risk because of voluntary intoxication, his unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that offense.
(c) Involuntary intoxication is a defense to prosecution if as a result the actor lacks capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
(d) Intoxication in itself does not constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of Section 13A-3-1.
(e) In this section:
(1) “Intoxication” includes a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.
(2) “Voluntary intoxication” means intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduced into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them under circumstances that would afford a defense to a charge of crime.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §505.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Donald Dwayne Whatley v. State of Alabama., 146 So. 3d 437 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
Donald Dwayne Whatley v. State of Alabama., 146 So. 3d 437 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
Albarran v. State, 96 So. 3d 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “) Section 13A-3-2, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “Intoxication in itself does not constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1.”
Lam Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). “First, Luong argues that the circuit court’s instructions on intoxication were contrary to the law set out in § 13A-3-2, Ala.Code 1975. Specifically, Luong argues that the circuit court erroneously instructed the jury that to find that Luong’s intoxication negated his specific…”
Smith v. State, 246 So. 3d 1086 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). “' Commentary to Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-3-2. Where the defendant is charged with a crime requiring specific intent and there is evidence of intoxication, ' "drunkenness, as affecting the mental state and condition of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the…”
Coon v. State, 494 So. 2d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-3-2(a). The requested charge is confusing and misleading because it in effect instructs the jury that they should find the defendant not guilty if they find (1) that he could not form the specific intent to damage a building, and (2) that he knew that…”
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
Williams v. State, 506 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987). “Code, 1975, § 13A-3-2 (Commentary). III There was no error in the court's disallowing the following question on cross-examination of a State's witness: "Would it surprise you to learn that [the victim] had a reputation for carrying a gun?" "The victim's bad general reputation…”
Sockwell v. State, 675 So. 2d 4 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “"`[D]runkenness due to liquor or drugs may render [a] defendant incapable of forming or entertaining a specific intent or some particular mental element that is essential to the crime.”
Jackson v. State, 791 So. 2d 979 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
Whitehead v. State, 777 So. 2d 781 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “§ 13A-3-2, Code of Alabama (1975) (Commentary).”
Hutcherson v. State, 677 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “' Commentary to Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-3-2. Where the defendant is charged with a crime requiring specific intent and there is evidence of intoxication, `"drunkenness, as affecting the mental state and condition of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the jury…”
McWhorter v. State, 781 So. 2d 257 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(a) — 13 cases
Coon v. State, 494 So. 2d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-3-2(a). The requested charge is confusing and misleading because it in effect instructs the jury that they should find the defendant not guilty if they find (1) that he could not form the specific intent to damage a building, and (2) that he knew that…”
McNabb v. State, 887 So. 2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
Albarran v. State, 96 So. 3d 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “) Section 13A-3-2, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “Intoxication in itself does not constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1.”
Jackson v. State, 791 So. 2d 979 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(b) — 2 cases
Williams v. State, 506 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987). “Code, 1975, § 13A-3-2 (Commentary). III There was no error in the court's disallowing the following question on cross-examination of a State's witness: "Would it surprise you to learn that [the victim] had a reputation for carrying a gun?" "The victim's bad general reputation…”
Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20 (2012).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(c) — 1 case
Davis v. State, 184 So. 3d 415 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(c)(1) — 1 case
Johnson v. State, 256 So. 3d 684 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(c)(l) — 4 cases
Harris v. State, 2 So. 3d 880 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
Spencer v. State, 58 So. 3d 215 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009).
Spencer v. State, 201 So. 3d 573 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
Pilley v. State, 930 So. 2d 550 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(d) — 4 cases
Williams v. Allen, 598 F.3d 778 (11th Cir. 2010).
Albarran v. State, 96 So. 3d 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “) Section 13A-3-2, Ala.Code 1975, specifically provides: “Intoxication in itself does not constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1.”
Donald Dwayne Whatley v. State of Alabama., 146 So. 3d 437 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “§ 13A-3-2. The degree of intoxication required to establish that a defendant was incapable of forming an intent to kill is a degree so extreme as to render it impossible for the defendant to form the intent to kill.”
Carr v. State, 518 So. 2d 816 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(e) — 3 cases
Smith v. State, 213 So. 3d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
Fisher v. State, 587 So. 2d 1027 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
Fisher v. State, 587 So. 2d 1027 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(e)(1) — 11 cases
Lee v. State, 898 So. 2d 790 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
Barber v. State, 952 So. 2d 393 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
Smith v. State, 246 So. 3d 1086 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017). “' Commentary to Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-3-2. Where the defendant is charged with a crime requiring specific intent and there is evidence of intoxication, ' "drunkenness, as affecting the mental state and condition of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the…”
Hammond v. State, 776 So. 2d 884 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).
Maples v. State, 758 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-2(e)(l) — 2 cases
Brownfield v. State, 44 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
Stanley v. State, 143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.