Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53a — PENAL CODE · Chapter 951 — Penal Code: Statutory Construction; Principles of Criminal Liability
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-7 (2026)

Effect of intoxication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Intoxication shall not be a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the crime charged, provided when recklessness or criminal negligence is an element of the crime charged, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of or disregards or fails to perceive a risk which he would have been aware of had he not been intoxicated, such unawareness, disregard or failure to perceive shall be immaterial. As used in this section, “intoxication” means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 7.)

Cited. 172 C. 65; 173 C. 35; 176 C. 224; 178 C. 480. Defendant is entitled, as matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction when evidence under section is before jury. Id., 704. Cited. 184 C. 121; 185 C. 63; 186 C. 414; 189 C. 611; 193 C. 632; 196 C. 341; 198 C. 560; Id., 644; 199 C. 102; 201 C. 190; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75; 210 C. 481; 212 C. 195; 217 C. 648; 223 C. 41; Id., 273; 234 C. 139.

Cited. 1 CA 260; 6 CA 701; 10 CA 643; 11 CA 122; 16 CA 358; 22 CA 521; 23 CA 315; Id., 502; 24 CA 678; 25 CA 456; 27 CA 73; 35 CA 699; 37 CA 404; 41 CA 361; 44 CA 818. Application of section. 51 CA 345. Trial court did not improperly exclude proffered evidence re defendant's claim of intoxication at time of murder. 91 CA 169. While intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge, evidence of defendant's intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of crime of murder; however, intoxication does not automatically negate intent. 95 CA 263.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Shine, 479 A.2d 218 (Conn. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Shine, 479 A.2d 218 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 21× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 53a-7, 3 which precluded the defendant from introducing evidence of self-induced intoxication to negate the recklessness element of those offenses, deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tully, 142 A.3d 1079 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 9× “" Commission to Revise the Criminal Statutes, Penal Code Comments, Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 53a-7 (West 2012), commission comment.”
State v. Ortiz, 588 A.2d 127 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 9× “1 At his trial, the defendant raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance provided for by § 53a-54a (a), and introduced circumstantial evidence in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-7 2 to establish that he had been volun *650 tarily intoxicated at the…”
State v. Stevenson, 504 A.2d 1029 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 11× “General Statutes § 53a-7; 10 State v. D’Antuono, 186 Conn.”
Copas v. Comm'r of Corr., 662 A.2d 718 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 4× “Extreme emotional disturbance is an element of first degree manslaughter; General Statutes § 53a-55; 14 and is an affirmative defense to murder. See footnote 2.”
Ramos v. Comm'r of Corr., 159 A.3d 1174 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 9× “rged offenses by a forensic psychiatrist to whom she accidentally gave the medical records of a different inmate for the purpose of making that evaluation; (2) failed to conduct an adequate investigation as to the potential viability of the defense of lack of intent to commit…”
State v. Fernandez, 604 A.2d 1308 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 8× ““The court then recited the statutory definition of the word ‘intoxication’; see General Statutes § 53a-7; as well as the statutory explanation of the role of intoxication and the relevance of evidence thereof in a prosecution for a specific intent offense: ‘Intoxication shall…”
State v. Smith, 441 A.2d 84 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 6× “General Statutes § 53a-7. 10 *75 II A The court did not err when it refused the defendant’s request to instruct the jury that if they found that he intentionally caused Curmon’s death and Nichols’ serious physical injury then they should find him not guilty of offenses the…”
State v. Utz, 513 A.2d 1191 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 6× “General Statutes § 53a-7. . . . ” State v.”
State v. Austin, 710 A.2d 732 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 4× “At trial, the defendant raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance pursuant to § 53a-54a (a) and introduced evidence of intoxication in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-7. 5 Because the defendant admitted that he had shot the victim, the central issue…”
State v. Chasse, 721 A.2d 1212 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “The trial court recited the statutory definition of the word “intoxication”; see General Statutes § 53a-7; 25 and then instructed the jurors that if they found that the defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time of the crime, they must then determine what…”
State v. Grullon, 562 A.2d 481 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 4× “) In addition, General Statutes § 53a-7 18 provides that evidence of intoxication may be offered to negate an element of the crime charged, and thereby exempts a defendant from lia *216 bility for specific intent crimes if he was intoxicated at the time of the crime.”
Show all 78 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.