562.076. Intoxicated or drugged condition. — 1. A person who is in an intoxicated or drugged condition, whether from alcohol, drugs or other substance, is criminally responsible for conduct unless such condition is involuntarily produced and deprived him or her of the capacity to know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his or her conduct.
2. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of intoxicated or drugged condition.
3. Evidence that a person was in a voluntarily intoxicated or drugged condition may be admissible when otherwise relevant on issues of conduct but in no event shall it be admissible for the purpose of negating a mental state which is an element of the offense. In a trial by jury, the jury shall be so instructed when evidence that a person was in a voluntarily intoxicated or drugged condition has been received into evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
73
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case:
State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 67× “Section 562.076, RSMo 1978, V.A.M.S., of The Criminal Code *798 in part provides: A person who is in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for his conduct "unless such condition (1) Negatives the existence of the mental states of purpose or knowledge when such…”
Collings v. State, 543 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2018).
· cites it 12× “15, raising 12 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, two claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and claims challenging the constitutional validity of section 562.076 1 regarding voluntary intoxication and the time limits.”
State v. Fanning, 939 S.W.2d 941 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 22× “Fanning asserted that he was incapable, due to his IQ and his state of intoxication, of knowing that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of the victim.”
State v. Mannon, 637 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 14× “7 because conventional murder in the second degree requires the specific intent to kill or do great bodily harm and under § 562.076 intoxication may be considered by the jury in determining whether a defendant had the necessary mental state to commit murder in the second degree.”
State v. Bristow, 190 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 23× “See Section 562.076, RSMo 1994, and State v. Erwin, 848 S.”
State v. Avery, 275 S.W.3d 231 (Mo. 2009).
· cites it 6× “” Section 562.076, RSMo 2000, informs MAI-CR3d 310.”
Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996).
· cites it 2× “2d 473, 478-479 (1988); Missouri, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.076 (1994), State v.”
State v. Wright, 376 S.W.3d 696 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 14× “6 Mo.Rev.Stat. § 562.076 (1978); Elam, 779 S.”
State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. 1995).
· cites it 3× “” § 562.076 RSMo 1978. Instruction 9 reflected that law: An intoxicated condition will not relieve a person of criminal responsibility unless his intoxicated condition prevented him from acting purposely.”
State v. Bishop, 632 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. 1982).
· cites it 11× “He gave notice of his intent to rely on the defense, authorized by § 562.076, RSMo, that he was in a drugged condition which was involuntarily produced and which deprived him of the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform it to the requirements of…”
State v. Johnson, 968 S.W.2d 686 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 4× “[39] Section 562.076. [40] Rule 29.15(d). [41] Davis, 814 S.”
Smith v. Wyrick, 538 F. Supp. 1017 (W.D. Mo. 1982).
· cites it 10× “Petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal because counsel failed to raise the issue that petitioner was entitled to discharge when the state failed to offer any rebuttal to the special defense of drugged condition and drugged dependence under RSMo…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.076(1) — 3 cases
State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
“Section 562.076, RSMo 1978, V.A.M.S., of The Criminal Code *798 in part provides: A person who is in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for his conduct "unless such condition (1) Negatives the existence of the mental states of purpose or knowledge when such…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.076(1)(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.076(3) — 1 case
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.