Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-503 (2026)
Effect of alcohol or drug use
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Temporary intoxication resulting from the voluntary ingestion, consumption, inhalation or injection of alcohol, an illegal substance under chapter 34 of this title or other psychoactive substances or the abuse of prescribed medications does not constitute insanity and is not a defense for any criminal act or requisite state of mind.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 13-503 (1989). ¶ 11 Section 13-503 now reads: Temporary intoxication resulting from the voluntary ingestion, consumption, inhalation or injection of alcohol, an illegal substance under chapter 34 of this title or other psychoactive substances or the abuse of prescribed…”
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004). “When Moody committed the murders in November of 1993, A.R.S. § 13-503 (1989) provided as follows: [W]hen the actual existence of the culpable mental state of intentionally or with the intent to is a necessary element to constitute any particular species or degree of offense, the…”
State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. 1997). “See A.R.S. § 13-503. Because the evidence offered was logically very relevant to the requisite mens rea, this case presents the issue of whether a criminal defendant has the right to defend against every element of the charged offense including the mens rea specified by the…”
State of Arizona v. Eric Boyston, 298 P.3d 887 (Ariz. 2013). “He argues that A.R.S. § 13-503 does not apply to premeditation or, to the extent it applies, it is unconstitutional.”
State v. Schurz, 859 P.2d 156 (Ariz. 1993). “Under A.R.S. § 13-503, the jury may consider voluntary intoxication in determining culpable mental state only when the culpable mental state of “intentionally or with the intent to” is a necessary element of the offense.”
State v. Ramos, 648 P.2d 119 (Ariz. 1982). “The question presented is whether A.R.S. § 13-503, as amended, is violative of due process.”
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994). “From this, he concludes that the legislature has not expressly precluded voluntary intoxication from negating the culpable mental state of "knowingly," and therefore, the above instruction constitutes reversible error.”
State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1991). “See A.R.S. § 13-503. The jury convicted Cook on both counts of first degree murder.”
State v. Kiles, 213 P.3d 174 (Ariz. 2009). “10 That section provided that [n]o act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition, but when the actual existence of the culpable mental state of intentionally or with the intent to is a…”
State v. Hicks, 649 P.2d 267 (Ariz. 1982). “A.R.S. § 13-503 provides: No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in *71 such condition, but when the actual existence of the culpable mental state of intentionally or with the intent to is a necessary…”
State v. Trostle, 951 P.2d 869 (Ariz. 1997). “See former A.R.S. § 13-503. A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013). “¶149 Section 13-503 provides that “[t]emporary intoxication .”
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.