Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-116 (2026)
Intoxication no excuse for crime.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Intoxication no excuse for crime.
A person who is in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for his conduct and an intoxicated condition is not a defense to any offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element of the offense unless the defendant proves that he did not know that it was an intoxicating substance when he consumed, smoked, sniffed, injected or otherwise ingested the substance causing the condition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: State v. Enno, 807 P.2d 610 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Enno, 807 P.2d 610 (Idaho 1991). “Intoxication and Specific Intent Instructions. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by not fully instructing the jury on the law concerning specific intent and intoxication.”
State v. Ransom, 50 P.3d 1055 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “Thus, the effect of Ransom’s voluntary intoxication was not an issue which the jury could evaluate during the trial.”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “[5] While the ingestion of drugs or alcohol by appellant on the evening of the offense is not sufficient in itself to raise a defense to the crime, it is our conclusion that any arguable impact of such substance abuse is a proper consideration in mitigation of punishment upon…”
State v. Kurtis Thomas Kelly, 353 P.3d 1096 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). “Kelly argues that I.C. § 18-116 is unconstitutional because it violates due process under the Idaho Constitution.”
State v. Hall, 727 P.2d 1255 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986). “I.C. § 18-116. However, if a specific intent is a necessary element of the crime charged, the jury may take intoxication into account in determining whether the defendant was capable of forming such intent when the crime was committed.”
State v. Osborn, 663 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1983). “While the ingestion of drugs or alcohol by appellant on the evening of the offense is not sufficient in itself to raise a defense to the crime, it is our conclusion that any arguable impact of such substance abuse is a proper consideration in mitigation of punishment upon…”
Carey v. State, 429 P.2d 836 (Idaho 1967). “” I.C. § 18-116. 3 Drunkenness may be probative of the accused’s mental state at the moment of the criminal act, however, and so the trier of fact may consider it “in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he [the accused] committed the act” if the “existence of…”
State v. Campos, 921 P.2d 1266 (N.M. 1996). “, Idaho Code § 18-116 (1979); Nev.Rev.Stat.”
State v. Lopez, 892 P.2d 898 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995). “Lopez requested that the jury be instructed that his intoxication could negate the specific intent requirement of rape, an instruction he believed was required by I.C. § 18-116. The district court refused to give this instruction, instead giving a general instruction on intent…”
Wolfe v. State, 743 P.2d 990 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “I.C. § 18-116 provides: No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition.”
Paz v. State, 852 P.2d 1355 (Idaho 1993). “Under Idaho Code section 18-116, voluntary intoxication while not a full defense to the charge can negate the presence of the specific intent required for a conviction of first degree murder.”
State v. Linn, 462 P.2d 729 (Idaho 1969). “2d 159 (1961) ; I.C. § 18-116. Thus it is evident that had appellant in fact requested such instructions at trial they would have been incorrect statements of the law.”
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.