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 North Dakota, as in many states, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to criminal charges. This means that if a defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol by their own choice, they cannot use that fact to excuse their criminal behavior. However, if the intoxication was involuntary—meaning the defendant was drugged without their knowledge or against their will—it may serve as a defense if it can be shown that the defendant was incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong. North Dakota law does recognize that involuntary intoxication can be a defense in certain circumstances. Regarding voluntary intoxication, it may be considered when specific intent is an element of the crime, as it could potentially prevent the defendant from forming the requisite intent to commit a crime like attempted murder. However, whether intoxication actually prevented the formation of specific intent is a question of fact for the jury to decide. The specifics of these defenses and their applicability would be detailed in North Dakota's penal or criminal codes and interpreted through case law.