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 South Carolina, as in many states, voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to criminal charges. The law typically holds individuals responsible for their actions, even if they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. 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. In cases where specific intent is an element of the crime, such as attempted murder, a defendant in South Carolina might argue that due to voluntary intoxication, they were unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime. This is a complex area of law, and whether intoxication can be considered a defense is ultimately a question of fact for the jury to decide, based on the evidence presented at trial. The specifics of these defenses and their applications are detailed in South Carolina's penal or criminal code.