Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (2026)
Intoxication
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), intoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense. However, intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence, if it is relevant to negate a culpable mental state.
- (b) If recklessness establishes an element of an offense and the person is unaware of a risk because of voluntary intoxication, the person's unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that offense.
- (c) Intoxication itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 39-11-501. However, involuntary intoxication is a defense to prosecution, if, as a result of the involuntary intoxication, the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person's conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of the law allegedly violated.
- (d) The following definitions apply in this part, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
- (1) "Intoxication" means disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body;
- (2) "Involuntary intoxication" means intoxication that is not voluntary; and
- (3) "Voluntary intoxication" means intoxication caused by a substance that the person knowingly introduced into the person's body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication was known or ought to have been known.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994).
State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (c) (1991 Repl.”
State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (a) (1997); see also Wiley v.”
Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). Although felony murder in the present case required a “reckless” killing, evidence of intoxication may have been admitted to negate the intent required in committing the felony underlying a felony murder charge.”
State of Tennessee v. Prince Adams, 405 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2013). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (a) (2010) (“[IJntoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is admissible in evidence, if it is relevant to negate a culpable mental state.”
State v. McPherson, 882 S.W.2d 365 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “The appellant contends that the trial court also committed error of prejudicial dimensions because the court “failed to instruct the jury as to the effect of the defendant’s intoxication on his intent pursuant to T.C.A. § 39-11-503.” He argues that this defense is “fairly…”
State v. Vaughn, 279 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “At an October 5, 2005 bond reduction hearing, the Defendant testified that he was on PCP the day of the killing, that he had been addicted to PCP since he was fifteen years old, and that he had previously received mental health treatment for the addiction while living in…”
Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993). “Our research has disclosed a number of states with intoxication statutes similar enough to ours to be of relevance.”
State v. Kain, 24 S.W.3d 816 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “The defendant’s argument presupposes that intoxication resulting from the voluntary ingesting of alcohol and prescription drugs is “involuntary,” so as to constitute a defense pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-503. However, we do not agree with this supposition.”
State of Tennessee v. Dennis Allen Rayfield, 507 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503 (2014). “The weight to be given the evidence and the determination of whether the voluntary intoxication negated the culpable mental elements were matters for the jury.”
Derek Williamson v. State of Tennessee, 476 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). “Hall and T.C.A. 39-11-503.” Id. at 597, n.9 . In concluding that the trial court erred in revoking the funds for expert assistance, the court said expert testimony on the issue of voluntary intoxication was relevant and admissible pursuant to Hall , but the court did not state…”
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (a), (c). “‘Voluntary intoxication’ means intoxication caused by a substance that the person knowingly introduced into the person’s body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication was known or ought to have been known,” and involuntary intoxication…”
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). “[I]ntoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(a) — 32 cases
State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (c) (1991 Repl.”
Wiley v. State, 183 S.W.3d 317 (Tenn. 2006). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). Although felony murder in the present case required a “reckless” killing, evidence of intoxication may have been admitted to negate the intent required in committing the felony underlying a felony murder charge.”
State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2010). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (a) (1997); see also Wiley v.”
State of Tennessee v. Grace Ann Blair (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). “[I]ntoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(a)(2010) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jermaine Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(b) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). “[I]ntoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense.”
State of Tennessee v. William T. Utley (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(c) — 5 cases
State v. Phipps, 883 S.W.2d 138 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (c) (1991 Repl.”
Jeffery T. Siler, Jr. v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Meeks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). “[I]ntoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense.”
State v. Michael Wayne Perry (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(d) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jesse Wayne Craddock (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503 (a), (c). “‘Voluntary intoxication’ means intoxication caused by a substance that the person knowingly introduced into the person’s body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication was known or ought to have been known,” and involuntary intoxication…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(d)(1) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Allen Boston (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Meeks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(d)(2) — 3 cases
Roy E. Keough v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Meeks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Randy Bray (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008). “See T.C.A. § 39-11-503(a) (2003). “[I]ntoxication itself is not a defense to prosecution for an offense.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-503(d)(3) — 5 cases
Roy E. Keough v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Desmond Simpson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2019).
State of Tennessee v. Darick A. Hinerman (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022).
State of Tennessee v. Charles Edward Meeks (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008).
State of Tennessee v. Kayln Marie Polochak (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
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.