Is Intoxication a Defense to Prosecution in Louisiana?

Many people assume that being drunk or under the influence of drugs means they cannot be held responsible for criminal acts. Louisiana law treats intoxication differently than most lay people expect. Under the state’s Criminal Code, intoxication is usually not a defense. Only in narrow circumstances can it reduce or defeat criminal liability. This article unpacks the statute, explains how courts analyze voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and highlights when the defense may or may not apply.

Understanding Louisiana’s Intoxication Statute

Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:15 is the starting point for any discussion about intoxication. The statute states that the defendant’s intoxicated or drugged condition at the time of the offense is generally immaterial, except in two situations:

• Involuntary Intoxication: When the intoxicated or drugged condition is involuntarily produced and “the circumstances indicate this condition is the direct cause of the commission of the crime”, the offender is exempt from criminal responsibility. Involuntary intoxication includes cases where someone is forced or deceived into becoming intoxicated, or when medications create unexpected effects.
• Specific‑Intent Crimes: If the circumstances show that the intoxication “has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime,” it can be a defense. This defense applies only when the crime charged requires proof of a particular mental state and the intoxication negates the defendant’s ability to form that intent.

These two statutory exceptions reflect Louisiana’s view that people remain responsible for their actions when they choose to become intoxicated, but fairness demands leniency when intoxication is involuntary or when a defendant could not form the mental state required by law.

Specific vs. General Criminal Intent

To understand when intoxication matters, one must distinguish specific intent from general intent. Louisiana law defines specific criminal intent as a state of mind where the offender “actively desired the prescribed criminal consequences to follow” from their act. In contrast, general intent exists whenever specific intent exists or when the circumstances show that the offender “must have adverted to the prescribed criminal consequences as reasonably certain to result” from their conduct. Crimes like burglary, theft and attempted murder require proof of specific intent, whereas offenses such as aggravated rape or simple battery are general‑intent crimes.

The intoxication defense under § 14:15(2) is only relevant to crimes requiring specific intent. For general‑intent offenses, courts presume that a person intends the natural consequences of becoming drunk; thus, voluntary intoxication does not excuse the conduct.

Voluntary vs. Involuntary Intoxication

Voluntary Intoxication

Voluntary intoxication occurs when a person knowingly consumes alcohol or drugs. Courts consistently hold that this does not excuse criminal acts unless the defendant’s intoxication negated the specific intent required by the offense. In a recent case involving an aggravated rape conviction, the Louisiana Court of Appeal explained that “voluntary intoxication can be considered as a defense only in cases where specific intent is a necessary element of the crime”. The court noted that aggravated rape is a general‑intent crime, so the defendant’s voluntary drinking did not provide a defense. Where the crime requires specific intent, the defendant must show that their intoxication was so great that they could not form the intent.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Lentz highlights this principle. The defendant, charged with simple burglary (a specific‑intent crime), requested a special jury charge on intoxication. The court held that the question is not when the intent was formed; rather, “whether, at the time the unauthorized entry occurred, the defendant was so intoxicated as to preclude the existence of any specific intent”. The court emphasized that voluntary intoxication is no defense unless the accused was “so drunk as to be mentally incapable of entertaining the requisite intent”. Therefore, defendants must present evidence that their intoxication was severe enough to eliminate intent. Testimony that the defendant was drinking or may not remember the crime typically is not enough; courts look for expert testimony or proof of extreme impairment.

Involuntary Intoxication

Involuntary intoxication arises when someone becomes intoxicated through force, deception, or other circumstances beyond their control. Under § 14:15(1), a defendant is exempt from criminal responsibility if the involuntary intoxication directly causes the crime. For example, if a person is drugged without their knowledge and subsequently commits an act they would not have committed sober, the law may relieve them of liability.

The Court of Appeal in State v. Curtin noted that involuntary intoxication is a defense when the intoxication is the direct cause of the crime. The court cited prior cases and the statute, explaining that when “the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent,” the intoxication can be a defense. This defense is rarely successful because defendants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were involuntarily intoxicated and that the intoxication directly caused the offense.

In State v. Keating, the defendant claimed he killed a man because the combined effect of prescription drugs and alcohol left him unable to control his actions. The court quoted § 14:15 and explained that intoxication is an affirmative defense; “the burden is upon the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was in fact intoxicated at the time of the offense”. Despite presenting expert testimony about the effects of medication and alcohol, the court found that other evidence showed the defendant was alert and understood his actions. Involuntary intoxication defenses thus require convincing proof that the defendant did not voluntarily consume the intoxicants and that the condition directly caused the crime.

When the Defense Cannot Be Used

There are several important limitations on the intoxication defense:

• General‑Intent Crimes: Courts routinely hold that voluntary intoxication is no defense to crimes requiring only general intent. The Curtin court observed that “in cases wherein the accused is voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the commission of the offense, the necessary criminal intent is generally found in the accused’s intention to become intoxicated”. For example, aggravated rape and many battery and theft offenses fall into this category. Even if a defendant was drinking heavily, the law presumes that they intended the consequences of becoming intoxicated.
• Specific‑Intent Formed Before Intoxication: Even for specific‑intent crimes, the defense does not apply if the intent was formed before the intoxication. In Lentz, the Supreme Court explained that if someone plans to commit burglary, then later becomes drunk and follows through, the earlier intent can satisfy the requirement. Only when intoxication prevents formation of intent at the time of the act does the defense apply.
• Insufficient Evidence of Severe Impairment: Being “buzzed” or even very drunk is not enough. Courts require evidence that the defendant was so intoxicated that they could not form specific intent. The Curtin court emphasized that voluntary intoxication is a defense only when it precludes intent. In Keating, multiple experts described the defendant’s impaired judgment, but the court still found he could distinguish right from wrong. Defendants must prove severe impairment, often through expert testimony.
• Non‑Mental‑State Elements: The intoxication defense affects only the mental element of a crime. It does not negate acts such as possession of a firearm by a felon or aggravated escape. The Legislature and courts treat those offenses as strict or general‑intent crimes, making intoxication irrelevant.

Case Law Illustrations

State v. Lentz (1975)

Facts: John Westley Lentz was convicted of simple burglary. He admitted taking drugs on the day of the break‑in and sought a jury instruction on intoxication. The trial judge refused.

Holding: The Louisiana Supreme Court held that because simple burglary requires specific intent, the jury should have been instructed that intoxication could be a defense if it precluded the defendant from forming intent. The court explained that the key question is whether the defendant was so intoxicated at the time of entry that he lacked specific intent. It reversed the conviction. The case established that defendants are entitled to an intoxication instruction in specific‑intent cases when evidence supports it and clarified that intent formed before intoxication still counts.

State v. Curtin (2023)

Facts: The defendant was convicted of aggravated rape and video voyeurism. She argued that she was intoxicated or drugged and could not consent or intend the acts.

Holding: The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that voluntary intoxication is a defense only to specific‑intent crimes. Aggravated rape is a general‑intent offense, so her drinking did not excuse the conduct. The court also noted that involuntary intoxication is a defense only when it is the direct cause of the crime. Because the jury rejected the claim that she was involuntarily intoxicated, the conviction stood.

State v. Keating (2000)

Facts: The defendant fatally shot a man and argued that a combination of prescription drugs and alcohol caused an involuntary intoxication that negated his intent.

Holding: The Court of Appeal reiterated the statutory rule that intoxication is immaterial except when involuntary or when it precludes specific intent. It explained that intoxication is an affirmative defense and the defendant bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence. Despite expert testimony about medication effects, other evidence showed the defendant was lucid; thus, he failed to meet his burden.

These cases illustrate how Louisiana courts analyze intoxication defenses and reinforce the narrowness of the statutory exceptions.

How the Ambeau Law Firm Can Help

Successfully asserting an intoxication defense requires deep knowledge of the law and meticulous preparation. At The Ambeau Law Firm, we understand that jurors often misconstrue intoxication as an excuse, and prosecutors downplay its relevance. Our attorneys have decades of combined experience defending clients against serious criminal charges, including cases involving substance use and complex forensic evidence. Founding attorney Jarrett Ambeau is a seasoned trial lawyer with more than 14 years of criminal defense experience and over 50 felony jury trials under his belt. He is also a court‑qualified expert in forensic DNA interpretation and holds a Master of Science in Forensic DNA and Serology. This scientific training equips our team to scrutinize laboratory reports, challenge the state’s forensic evidence, and explain scientific concepts to juries.

When intoxication is an issue, we thoroughly investigate the circumstances. We work with medical and pharmacological experts to determine whether your intoxication was involuntary or so severe that it negated specific intent. If law enforcement violated your rights in obtaining blood or urine samples, we fight to suppress that evidence. We also explore alternative defenses, such as self‑defense, mistake of fact, or mental health defenses, to ensure every viable argument is presented.

Our commitment is to provide clear guidance and vigorous representation. We pride ourselves on accessible communication, ensuring that you understand how intoxication affects your case and what strategies may apply. If you are facing charges where alcohol or drugs played a role, contact The Ambeau Law Firm for a consultation. We will evaluate the facts, advise you on the viability of an intoxication defense, and aggressively protect your rights.

Conclusion

Louisiana law treats intoxication as largely irrelevant to criminal liability. Only involuntary intoxication or intoxication that negates specific intent offers a potential defense, and even then the defendant bears the burden of proof. Courts look for compelling evidence of severe impairment and will not excuse conduct based on ordinary drunkenness. Understanding the statute and how courts apply it is essential for anyone facing charges involving alcohol or drugs. By working with experienced criminal defense attorneys, such as those at The Ambeau Law Firm, defendants can ensure that all appropriate defenses including intoxication are fully explored and presented.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and readers should consult an attorney for advice regarding their specific circumstances.

Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature

STATE v. CURTIN (2023) | FindLaw

State v. Lentz :: 1975 :: Louisiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Louisiana Case Law :: Louisiana Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

STATE v. KEATING (2000) | FindLaw

Jarrett Ambeau | Criminal Defense Attorney Bio