Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (2026)
Intoxication
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the intoxication resulted from the introduction of a substance into his body:
(1) without his consent; or
(2) when he did not know that the substance might cause intoxication.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.10; Acts 1980, P.L.205, SEC.1; P.L.210-1997, SEC.4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Terry v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 1984).
Terry v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 1984). “The questions presented are whether attempted murder is a crime within the scope of Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) so that voluntary intoxication would be an offerable defense and whether Ind.”
Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (1998). The majority seemingly also would find evidence of intoxication to be relevant and reliable, as it would allow it to be introduced as "general background.”
State v. Van Cleave, 674 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind. 1996). “205, § 1 (effective September 1,1980), codified at Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) (1993). We concluded in Poe v.”
Sills v. State, 463 N.E.2d 228 (Ind. 1984). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) (Burns 1983 Supp.”
Pavey v. State, 498 N.E.2d 1195 (Ind. 1986). “Apparently in response to the Williams decision [1] , the Indiana General Assembly amended Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) to provide that voluntary intoxication is a defense "only to the extent that it negates an element of an offense referred to by the phrase `with intent to' or…”
Johnson v. State, 435 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 1982). “The trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and PRENTICE, J., concur.”
Ellis v. State, 736 N.E.2d 731 (Ind. 2000). “1984) (finding a similar involuntary intoxication instruction, based upon previous versions of Ind.Code §§ 35-41-3-5 and 35-41-3-6(a), was correct).”
Alfrey v. State, 960 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “” Indiana Code section 35-41-3-5 establishes the only circumstances under which intoxication may be used as a defense: “It is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct did so while he was intoxicated, only if the intoxication resulted from the introduction…”
Horan v. State, 682 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. 1997). “2d 361 (1996), Terry was no longer good law to the extent it suggested Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) violates federal due process guarantees.”
Johnson v. State, 832 N.E.2d 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “See I.C. § 35-41-3-5. Based upon the clear language of the intoxication statutes and our supreme court's decision in Sanchez, we conclude that had Johnson's trial counsel objected to the State's Proposed Final Instruction No.”
Juan Manzano v. State of Indiana, 12 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Manzano emphasizes the State's inability to produce an audible and/or transcribed copy of Casimiro Loera's statement, the other coworker who was drinking with Manzano on the night he raped his daughter.”
Champlain v. State, 717 N.E.2d 567 (Ind. 1999). “At the time of the murder, Indiana Code § 35-41-3-5, allowed intoxication as a defense to a crime if it was involuntary or if it negated an essential element of the crime.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5(b) — 22 cases
Terry v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 1984). “The questions presented are whether attempted murder is a crime within the scope of Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) so that voluntary intoxication would be an offerable defense and whether Ind.”
State v. Van Cleave, 674 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind. 1996). “205, § 1 (effective September 1,1980), codified at Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) (1993). We concluded in Poe v.”
Sills v. State, 463 N.E.2d 228 (Ind. 1984). “Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (b) (Burns 1983 Supp.”
Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001). “See Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5 (1998). The majority seemingly also would find evidence of intoxication to be relevant and reliable, as it would allow it to be introduced as "general background.”
Johnson v. State, 435 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 1982). “The trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and PRENTICE, J., concur.”
— Ind. Code § 35-41-3-5(l)(2) — 1 case
Sanchez v. State, 732 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
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.