Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.125 (2026)
Drug or controlled substance use or dependence or intoxication as defense
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
161.125 Drug or controlled substance use or dependence or intoxication as defense. (1) The use of drugs or controlled substances, dependence on drugs or controlled substances or voluntary intoxication shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence that the defendant used drugs or controlled substances, or was dependent on drugs or controlled substances, or was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged.
(2) When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the defendant, due to the use of drugs or controlled substances, dependence on drugs or controlled substances or voluntary intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which the defendant would have been aware had the defendant been not intoxicated, not using drugs or controlled substances, or not dependent on drugs or controlled substances, such unawareness is immaterial. [1971 c.743 §11; 1973 c.697 §13; 1979 c.744 §6]
PARTIES TO CRIME
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: State v. Bassett, 228 P.3d 590 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Bassett, 228 P.3d 590 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “125(1) provides, in part: “[Vloluntary intoxication shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence that the defendant * * * was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an…”
State v. Stevens, 806 P.2d 92 (Or. 1991). “” The court decided simply to read ORS 161.125(1). Defendant objected. The court then recalled the jury and read this instruction: “The use of drugs or controlled substances, dependence on drugs or controlled substances, or voluntary intoxication shall not as such constitute a…”
State v. Herrera, 594 P.2d 823 (Or. 1979). “” Judge Schwab concluded that by preventing drug dependence from being used as a defense in ORS 161.125, the legislature had also intended to preclude drug dependence from being the basis of the mental disease or defect affirmative defense in ORS 161.”
State v. Corpuz, 621 P.2d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Third, as a corollary to this point, defendant contends that the trial court’s jury instruction based on ORS 161.125 concerning voluntary intoxication and recklessness was improper and a prejudicial comment on the evidence.”
State v. Meiser, 481 P.3d 375 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “The defen- dant pointed out that ORS 161.125 provided that voluntary intoxication, “as such,” cannot constitute a defense, but that 5 We assumed for the sake of analysis that the liver complications qualified as a mental disease or defect.”
Cox v. Howton, 343 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “She subsequently sought post-conviction relief, alleging that her guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary because her trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance in that he misunderstood the culpability requirements for the crimes with which petitioner was charged, failed…”
Brenner v. Nooth, 391 P.3d 947 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Based on those arguments, the issue before us is whether the post-conviction court erred in concluding that the testimony of Julien and Cantrell would have been admissible at petitioner’s criminal trial and, on the basis of that testimony, erred in granting petitioner a new…”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of White, 815 P.2d 1257 (Or. 1991). “See ORS 161.125 (voluntary intoxication can "negative an element of the crime charged").”
State v. Irish, 340 Or. App. 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “See ORS 161.125(1) (“[E]vidence that the defen- dant * * * was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged.”
State v. Thayer, 573 P.2d 758 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “If the alcohol rendered him intoxicated under ORS 161.125 the homicide might only be manslaughter in the first degree, not murder.”
Nichols v. Persson, 468 P.3d 952 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “135,5 or a general defense that her mental conditions or drug dependence prevented her from forming the requisite mental state at the time of the crime, using statutes such as ORS 161.125(1) or ORS 161.300.6 That more general defense is generally referred to as a…”
Short v. Hill, 99 P.3d 311 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “On appeal, petitioner renews his argument that his trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill by failing to be aware of and rely on ORS 161.125. He contends that that failure led to counsel’s decision not to investigate the availability of expert testimony.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.125(1) — 21 cases
State v. Bassett, 228 P.3d 590 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “125(1) provides, in part: “[Vloluntary intoxication shall not, as such, constitute a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense, evidence that the defendant * * * was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an…”
State v. Stevens, 806 P.2d 92 (Or. 1991). “” The court decided simply to read ORS 161.125(1). Defendant objected. The court then recalled the jury and read this instruction: “The use of drugs or controlled substances, dependence on drugs or controlled substances, or voluntary intoxication shall not as such constitute a…”
Cox v. Howton, 343 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “She subsequently sought post-conviction relief, alleging that her guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary because her trial counsel rendered inadequate assistance in that he misunderstood the culpability requirements for the crimes with which petitioner was charged, failed…”
State v. Herrera, 594 P.2d 823 (Or. 1979). “” Judge Schwab concluded that by preventing drug dependence from being used as a defense in ORS 161.125, the legislature had also intended to preclude drug dependence from being the basis of the mental disease or defect affirmative defense in ORS 161.”
Brenner v. Nooth, 391 P.3d 947 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Based on those arguments, the issue before us is whether the post-conviction court erred in concluding that the testimony of Julien and Cantrell would have been admissible at petitioner’s criminal trial and, on the basis of that testimony, erred in granting petitioner a new…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.125(2) — 11 cases
State v. Corpuz, 621 P.2d 604 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Third, as a corollary to this point, defendant contends that the trial court’s jury instruction based on ORS 161.125 concerning voluntary intoxication and recklessness was improper and a prejudicial comment on the evidence.”
State v. Irish, 340 Or. App. 341 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “See ORS 161.125(1) (“[E]vidence that the defen- dant * * * was intoxicated may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negative an element of the crime charged.”
State v. Hazlett, 345 P.3d 482 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
Hunter v. Farmers Ins., 898 P.2d 201 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Belcher, 860 P.2d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
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.