Intoxication due to a defendant’s voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol isn’t usually a defense to criminal charges—but if the intoxication was involuntary, it may be a defense on the basis that the defendant did not understand what he was doing or that what he was doing was wrong. And some states allow a defendant to assert a defense that his voluntary intoxication prevented him from forming the specific intent to commit the crime (attempted murder, for example). But this is a question of fact that the jury will usually determine.

The availability and definition of any defense to criminal charges based on the defendant’s voluntary or involuntary intoxication is usually located in a state’s statutes—often in the penal or criminal code.

In Minnesota, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to criminal charges. However, under Minnesota law, there are limited circumstances where voluntary intoxication can be considered as a defense. Specifically, if a crime requires proof of specific intent, a defendant may argue that due to intoxication, they were incapable of forming that specific intent. This is most relevant in cases involving serious crimes such as attempted murder. On the other hand, involuntary intoxication can be a defense if it can be shown that the defendant was not aware of what they were doing or that it was wrong due to the intoxication. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication is significant, and the burden is on the defendant to prove the intoxication was involuntary and affected their understanding or actions to the extent necessary for a defense. The jury typically determines the validity of these defenses after examining the facts of the case. The specifics of these defenses are outlined in Minnesota's penal or criminal statutes.