Alaska Stat. » Chapter 11.81
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 11.81.630 (2026)

Intoxication as a defense

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.81.630. Intoxication as a defense.
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a prosecution for an offense, but evidence that the defendant was intoxicated may be offered whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense that requires that the defendant intentionally cause a result.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Abruska v. State, 705 P.2d 1261 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abruska v. State, 705 P.2d 1261 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 11× “a provision of law defining an offense when the person is aware that the conduct is of that nature or that the circumstance exists; when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, that knowledge is established if a person is aware of a…”
Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “020 is very similar to AS 11.81.630, which deals with the significance of evidence of intoxication.”
Neitzel v. State, 655 P.2d 325 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “AS 11.81.630 provides in relevant part: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a prosecution for an offense, but evidence that the defendant was intoxicated may be offered whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the offense that requires that the defendant…”
Shell v. State, 512 A.2d 358 (Md. 1986). · cites it 2× “Alaska Stat. §§ 11.81.630 , 11.81.900 (1984); State v.”
Moore v. State, 123 P.3d 1081 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “" [4] Under AS 11.81.630, a defendant's intoxication may be relevant to negate an intent to cause a result.”
Williams v. State, 737 P.2d 360 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “030 was repealed, and was replaced in 1980 by AS 11.81.630. Ch. 166, §§ 10, 21, 25, SLA 1978.”
Evans v. State, 645 P.2d 155 (Alaska 1982). · cites it 2× “030, and with the statute now in effect, AS 11.81.630. 10 Given the pervasive problems in Alaska of criminal acts committed by those who are drunk we think the better rule is one which views the accused’s voluntary state of intoxication as irrelevant to the issue of insanity.”
Fox v. State, 685 P.2d 1267 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See AS 11.81.630. Nevertheless, Fox’s trial counsel objected to the state’s proposal and insisted that, in response to the jury’s question, the court should tell the jury only that neither instruction 21 nor instruction 27 took precedence over the other.”
Brown v. State, 739 P.2d 182 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “See also AS 11.81.630 (voluntary intoxication not a defense to prosecution for offense, but evidence that defendant was intoxicated may be offered whenever relevant to negate an element of offense that requires defendant intentionally cause result).”
Stevens v. State, 748 P.2d 771 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “See AS 11.81.630 (proof of intoxication may negate “intent” where intent is required as an element of an offense).”
Baden v. State, 667 P.2d 1275 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “See also AS 11.81.630; AS 11.81.-900(a)(2)-(3). Given the testimony by Baden, corroborated by other witnesses, to the effect that he was extremely intoxicated by the alcohol and LSD he had consumed, the jury could have concluded that Baden was so intoxicated that he ripped C.”
Richard Dorsey v. State of Alaska, 480 P.3d 1211 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021). “Craig would testify that Dorsey “knew what he was doing.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.