Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 45. CRIMES · CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY · Part 2. Other Factors Affecting Individual Liability
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-203 (2026)

Responsibility -- Intoxicated Condition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 45
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 45-2-203 Responsibility -- intoxicated condition

TITLE 45. CRIMES

CHAPTER 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY

Part 2. Other Factors Affecting Individual Liability

Responsibility -- Intoxicated Condition

45-2-203. Responsibility -- intoxicated condition. A person who is in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for the person's conduct, and an intoxicated condition is not a defense to any 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 proves that the defendant did not know that it was an intoxicating substance when the defendant consumed, smoked, sniffed, injected, or otherwise ingested the substance causing the condition.

History: En. 94-2-109 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 53, Ch. 329, L. 1974; R.C.M. 1947, 94-2-109; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 251, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 1636, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: State v. McCaslin, 2004 MT 212 (Mont. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McCaslin, 2004 MT 212 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 40× “17(a), which was based upon § 45-2-203, MCA? ¶10 2. Whether the District Court erred in admitting evidence of the Defendant's state of intoxication after his arrest? ¶11 3.”
State v. Egelhoff, 900 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 38× “At that time, she claimed that § 45-2-203, MCA, is unconstitutional because it has the effect of negating the requirement that the State prove a mental state when proving deliberate homicide where the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated.”
Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). · cites it 10× “Although respondent was allowed to make this use of the evidence that he was intoxicated, the jury was instructed, pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 45-2-203 (1995), that it could not consider respondent's "intoxicated condition .”
State v. Belanus, 2010 MT 204 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 24× “Was Belanus’ right to defend against the charges infringed by application of § 45-2-203, MCA, which disallows consideration of voluntary intoxication in relation to a defendant’s state of mind? 2.”
State v. Ring, 2014 MT 49 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 30× “¶8 Over Ring’s objection, the District Court submitted to the jury an instruction concerning the effect of being in an “intoxicated condition,” which essentially reiterated the provisions of § 45-2-203, MCA. The juiy instruction provided that intoxication from having ingested…”
City of Missoula v. Paffhausen, 2012 MT 265 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 40× “Instead, she argues that she should be allowed “to present evidence that she was unknowingly drugged as it relates to the voluntary act element of DUI.”
State v. Ostwald, 591 P.2d 646 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 9× “1947, now section 45-2-203 MCA, which has no notice requirement.”
State v. Pierce, 647 P.2d 847 (Mont. 1982). · cites it 9× “And, in doing so, the majority have ignored section 45-2-203, MCA, which permits the jury to consider intoxication as having the potential to negate proof of the existence of the required mental state to complete the crime.”
State v. Shawn H. Weller, 2009 MT 168 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 12× “¶7 The instruction offered by Weller was premised upon § 45-2-203, MCA, which states: A person who is in an intoxicated condition is criminally responsible for his conduct and an intoxicated condition is not a defense to any offense and may not be taken into consideration in…”
Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “Mont.Code Ann. § 45-2-203 (1985) (amended in 1987 to preclude a jury from taking intoxication into account when considering mental state).”
State v. Cybulski, 2009 MT 70 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 3× “Section 45-2-203, MCA. ¶44 Viewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we are constrained to do, Rosling , ¶ 35, a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Cybulski was either aware of her conduct and the risk…”
State v. Bingman, 745 P.2d 342 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 9× “Kurtz, to show that defendant was under the influence of the drug Stadol at the time he committed the witness tampering. Appellant argues that this evidence would go directly to the defense of intoxication which prevented him from forming the requisite mental state.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
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.