Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-2-5 (2026)
Intoxication
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense unless the defendant meets the requirements of IC 35-41-3-5.
As added by P.L.210-1997, SEC.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001).
Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001). “[7] The Egelhoff opinion is useful in construing Ind.Code § 35-41-2-5 because the statute was drafted in 1997, apparently in response to Egelhoff .”
Orta v. State, 940 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Indiana Code section 35-41-2-5 (2008) provides that voluntary intoxication *376 is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense.”
Johnson v. State, 832 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “2001), our supreme court made it clear that Indiana Code §§ 35-41-2-5 and 35-41-3-5 do not allow the defense of voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea.”
Louallen v. State, 755 N.E.2d 672 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Ind. Code § 35-41-2-5 states that: "[i]ntoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense unless the defendant meets the requirements of IC…”
Rogers v. State, 897 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “2001) (citing Ind.Code § 35-41-2-5). Therefore, if the State proved that Rogers acted while voluntarily intoxicated, it met its burden of proving Rogers’s mens rea for the crime of murder.”
Alfrey v. State, 960 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Indiana Code section 35-41-2-5 (2009) prohibits, in general terms, the use of intoxication as a defense: “Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of…”
Wright v. State, 730 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. 2000). “Although both sides agree that these statutes apply in the instant case, we note that Ind.Code § 35-41-2-5 became effective on July 1, 1997, while Wright was charged with a murder that occurred on or about May 31, 1997.”
John W. Thomas v. State of Indiana, 61 N.E.3d 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “Thereafter, in 1997, Indiana’s legislature enacted Indiana Code section 35-41-2-5 (“the voluntary intoxication statute”), which provides: Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a…”
Davidson v. State, 849 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 2006). “Ind.Code Ann. §§ 35-41-2-5, -3-5 (West 2004).”
Berry v. State, 969 N.E.2d 35 (Ind. 2012). “Indiana Code section 35-41-2-5 states that "[i]ntoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense unless the defendant meets the requirements of IC…”
Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Indiana Code section 35-41-2-5 (2004) provides, “Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense unless the defendant meets the requirements of…”
Jason L. Bloomfield v. State of Indiana, 61 N.E.3d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “On a related note, Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-5 states that "[¡Intoxication is not a defense in a prosecution for an offense and may not be taken into consideration in determining the existence of a mental state that is an element of the offense unless the defendant meets the…”
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.