Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 775.051 (2025)

Voluntary intoxication; not a defense; evidence not admissible for certain purposes; exception.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

775.051 Voluntary intoxication; not a defense; evidence not admissible for certain purposes; exception.—Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law. Evidence of a defendant’s voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of a controlled substance under chapter 893 was pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to the defendant by a practitioner as defined in s. 893.02.

History.—s. 1, ch. 99-174; s. 29, ch. 2016-224.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 74 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Smith v. State, 28 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. State, 28 So. 3d 838 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 36× “§ 775.051, Fla. Stat. (2004). [19] Davis committed the murder in 1994, and this aggravator was not enacted until 1995.”

Troy v. State, 948 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 18× “Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of…”

Smiley v. State, 966 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 5× “013 is analogous to section 775.051, which abrogated the affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication.”

Patrick v. State, 104 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 5× “See § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (1999). Lewis v. State, 817 So.”

Barrett v. State, 862 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · cites it 12× “Peter Barrett appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and asserts that the trial court erred in holding that section 775.051, Florida Statutes (2001), is constitutional.”

In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—Report 2012-07, 122 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 2013). · cites it 11× “6(e)(1) INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION NEGATING SPECIFIC INTENT § 775.051 Fla. Stat. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense.”

Carter v. State, 980 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 6× “Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of…”

Lucherini v. State, 932 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). · cites it 10× “Because the trial court abused its discretion in prohibiting Lucherini from presenting evidence of his prescription medications in support of an involuntary intoxication defense under section 775.051, Florida Statutes (2000), we reverse his conviction and sentence.”

Douglas v. State, 878 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2004). · cites it 2× “[10] Section 775.051, Florida Statutes (2003), which became effective on October 1, 1999, provides in full: Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any…”

Gibbs v. State, 904 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · cites it 5× “§ 775.051, Fla. Stat. (1999); Lewis v. State, 817 So.”

Owen v. State, 986 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 2× “See § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (2007) (abolishing voluntary intoxication defense effective October 1, 1999).”

Stimus v. State, 995 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). · cites it 5× “The State observed that, pursuant to section 775.051, Florida Statutes (2002), [2] evidence of voluntary intoxication was not admissible to show that a defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and was not admissible to show that a defendant was insane at the…”

Show all 74 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.