Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 768 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37 (2026)

Under influence of or impairment by alcoholic liquor or drug as defense prohibited; exception; definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


768.37 Under influence of or impairment by alcoholic liquor or drug as defense prohibited; exception; definitions.

Sec. 37.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance, other substance or compound, or combination of alcoholic liquor, drug, or other substance or compound.

    (2) It is an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime, for which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she voluntarily consumed a legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and did not know and reasonably should not have known that he or she would become intoxicated or impaired.

    (3) As used in this section:

    (a) "Alcoholic liquor" means that term as defined in section 105 of the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1105.

    (b) "Consumed" means to have eaten, drunk, ingested, inhaled, injected, or topically applied, or to have performed any combination of those actions, or otherwise introduced into the body.

    (c) "Controlled substance" means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

History: Add. 2002, Act 366, Eff. Sept. 1, 2002

Compiler's Notes:

    Enacting section 1 of Act 366 of 2002 provides:

    “Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect September 1, 2002, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: People v. Maynor, 683 N.W.2d 565 (Mich. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Maynor, 683 N.W.2d 565 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the enactment of MCL 768.37, which abolished the defense of voluntary intoxication except in one narrow circumstance, has significantly diminished the need to categorize crimes as being either "specific" or "general" intent crimes.”
People v. Nickens, 685 N.W.2d 657 (Mich. 2004). “at 155 7 This Court has recently noted that “the enactment of MCL 768.37, which abolished the defense of voluntary intoxication except in one narrow circumstance, has significantly diminished the need to categorize crimes as being either ‘specific’ or ‘general’ intent crimes.”
Rockwell v. Palmer, 559 F. Supp. 2d 817 (W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “…filed "Standard 11 Brief.” 4 . In 2002, Michigan abolished voluntary intoxication as a defense to any crime. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37 (1).”
People v. Jones, 839 N.W.2d 51 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “MCL 768.32(1) provides: Except as provided in subsection (2), upon an indictment for an offense, consisting of different degrees, as prescribed in this chapter [MCL 768.”
People of Michigan v. Zebadiah Joseph Soriano (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “37 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance,…”
Nicholson v. Haas (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 5× “MCL 768.37, which conditions the right to offer evidence of diminished capacity from voluntary consumption of medication on a defendant’s status as a legal drug user, violates appellant’s due process right to present a defense establishing that, due to Xanax overdose, appellant…”
People of Michigan v. Daniel Joseph Loxton (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE Daniel argues that MCL 768.37, which bars defendants from asserting voluntary intoxication as a defense, violates his constitutional right to present a defense.”
Grice 254091 v. LaFave (W.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 5× “”1 See Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37 (1). Furthermore, “[a]n 1 Michigan law does provide that [i]t is an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime, for which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she voluntarily consumed a legally…”
People of Michigan v. Darius Marquis Thomas (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “] Initially, it is important to note that the trial court’s instruction comported with Michigan law, which states, “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor,…”
Verhulst v. Braham (W.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 4× “Petitioner and his father 3 The “involuntary intoxication” defense at issue in Caulley was different than the involuntary intoxication defense addressed in Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37 . That statute notes that voluntary consumption of a substance is not a defense to any crime,…”
People of Michigan v. Alex Marco Key (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “MCL 768.37 provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled…”
People of Michigan v. Michael Douglas Poole Sr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Similarly, pursuant to MCL 768.37(1), “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed .”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37(1) — 10 cases
People of Michigan v. Zebadiah Joseph Soriano (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “37 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance,…”
People of Michigan v. Michael Douglas Poole Sr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” Similarly, pursuant to MCL 768.37(1), “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed .”
People of Michigan v. Michael Douglas Poole Sr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Brian Wayne Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
People of Michigan v. Daniel Clay (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.37(2) — 10 cases
People of Michigan v. Darius Marquis Thomas (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “] Initially, it is important to note that the trial court’s instruction comported with Michigan law, which states, “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor,…”
Nicholson v. Haas (E.D. Mich. 2022). “MCL 768.37, which conditions the right to offer evidence of diminished capacity from voluntary consumption of medication on a defendant’s status as a legal drug user, violates appellant’s due process right to present a defense establishing that, due to Xanax overdose, appellant…”
People of Michigan v. Erik Sadowski (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People of Michigan v. Alex Marco Key (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 768.37 provides, in relevant part: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled…”
People of Michigan v. Michael Douglas Poole Sr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “” Similarly, pursuant to MCL 768.37(1), “it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed .”
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.