Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 37 (2026)

Intoxication

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Except as provided in subsection 2, evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind.  
[PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]
2.  When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if a person, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which the person would have been aware had the person not been intoxicated, such unawareness is immaterial.  
[PL 2007, c. 173, §11 (AMD).]
3.  As used in this section:  
A. "Intoxication" means a disturbance of mental capacities resulting from the introduction of alcohol, drugs or similar substances into the body; and   [PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW).]
B. "Self-induced intoxication" means intoxication caused when a person intentionally or knowingly introduces into the person's body substances that the person knows or ought to know tend to cause intoxication, unless the person introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such duress as would afford a defense to a charge of crime.   [PL 2007, c. 173, §12 (AMD).]
[PL 2007, c. 173, §12 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 324, §14 (NEW). PL 2007, c. 173, §§11, 12 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State v. Franklin, 463 A.2d 749 (Me. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Franklin, 463 A.2d 749 (Me. 1983). · cites it 3× “First, Demers’ testimony relates to Franklin’s intoxication defense under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37. Second, Dem-ers’ testimony contributes to the possibility of reducing the murder charge to a manslaughter verdict.”
Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 2× “Our research has disclosed a number of states with intoxication statutes similar enough to ours to be of relevance.”
State v. Tomah, 1999 ME 109 (Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “17-A M.R.S.A. § 37 (1983); see State v. Wood, 662 A.”
State v. Lewis, 584 A.2d 622 (Me. 1990). · cites it 2× “Because it was reasonable for the court to conclude that expert testimony as to the presence of the drug in Lewis’s system would not assist the jury in the absence of expert testimony as to how that drug might have affected Lewis, the court did not abuse its discretion in…”
State of Maine v. Richard Griffin, 2017 ME 79 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. §§ 37(1), 38 (2016). If mens rea is an element of the crime and if the fact-finder determines that the evidence of the defendant’s mental condition raises a reasonable doubt regarding that element, the defendant must be acquitted.”
State of Maine v. Joel A. Hayden, 2014 ME 31 (Me. 2014). “17-A M.R.S. § 37(1) (2013). But when a defendant presents evidence of voluntary intoxication — as opposed to involuntary intoxication — the State is not required to disprove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Haberski, 449 A.2d 373 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “ki pled both not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity and the trial justice instructed the jury on the issue of insanity, Haberski does not argue that the jury, as a matter of law, was compelled to find that he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the…”
State v. McDonald, 472 A.2d 424 (Me. 1984). “§ 39, or the defense of intoxication, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37, and the prosecuting attorney is not, thereby, relieved of the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the alleged offense.”
State v. Flewelling, 524 A.2d 765 (Me. 1987). · cites it 2× “” 2 Under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(1) (1983), evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable mental state.”
State v. Gallant, 847 A.2d 413 (Me. 2004). “” The State concedes that Gallant sufficiently raised the issue of intoxication. Although the State does not have the burden of disproving the existence of the issue of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would if the issue of intoxication was a statutory defense, see…”
State v. Morelli, 493 A.2d 336 (Me. 1985). · cites it 2× “In accord with 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(2) the court instructed the jury that self-induced intoxication may not be used to negate the required mental state of recklessness.”
Boyce v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Corr., 217 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Me. 2002). “) Maine law provides that “evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind,” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(1) (West 1982), but this defense is not available for offenses other than those that carry an intentional or knowing…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 37(1) — 6 cases
State of Maine v. Richard Griffin, 2017 ME 79 (Me. 2017). “” 17-A M.R.S. §§ 37(1), 38 (2016). If mens rea is an element of the crime and if the fact-finder determines that the evidence of the defendant’s mental condition raises a reasonable doubt regarding that element, the defendant must be acquitted.”
State of Maine v. Joel A. Hayden, 2014 ME 31 (Me. 2014). “17-A M.R.S. § 37(1) (2013). But when a defendant presents evidence of voluntary intoxication — as opposed to involuntary intoxication — the State is not required to disprove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Gallant, 847 A.2d 413 (Me. 2004). “” The State concedes that Gallant sufficiently raised the issue of intoxication. Although the State does not have the burden of disproving the existence of the issue of intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would if the issue of intoxication was a statutory defense, see…”
State v. Flewelling, 524 A.2d 765 (Me. 1987). “” 2 Under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(1) (1983), evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable mental state.”
Boyce v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Corr., 217 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Me. 2002). “) Maine law provides that “evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable state of mind,” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(1) (West 1982), but this defense is not available for offenses other than those that carry an intentional or knowing…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 37(2) — 4 cases
State v. Flewelling, 524 A.2d 765 (Me. 1987). “” 2 Under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(1) (1983), evidence of intoxication may raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a required culpable mental state.”
State v. Morelli, 493 A.2d 336 (Me. 1985). “In accord with 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(2) the court instructed the jury that self-induced intoxication may not be used to negate the required mental state of recklessness.”
Leal, 26 I. & N. Dec. 20 (2012).
State v. Cote, 560 A.2d 558 (Me. 1989).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 37(3)(A) — 1 case
State v. Franklin, 463 A.2d 749 (Me. 1983). “First, Demers’ testimony relates to Franklin’s intoxication defense under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37. Second, Dem-ers’ testimony contributes to the possibility of reducing the murder charge to a manslaughter verdict.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 37(3)(B) — 1 case
State v. Morelli, 493 A.2d 336 (Me. 1985). “In accord with 17-A M.R.S.A. § 37(2) the court instructed the jury that self-induced intoxication may not be used to negate the required mental state of recklessness.”
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.