ID · jury_instructions
ICJI 1504
Intoxication a Relevant Issue – Defense
ICJI 1504 INTOXICATION A RELEVANT ISSUE -- DEFENSE
For the defendant to be guilty of [name of offense], the state must prove the defendant had a particular [state of mind] [purpose] [motive] [intent]. Evidence was offered that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offense. If the state has failed to prove such intoxication was voluntary, you may consider the defendant's state of intoxication in determining whether the defendant had that required [state of mind] [purpose] [motive] [intent].
If from all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was capable of forming such [state of mind] [purpose] [motive] [intent], you must find the defendant not guilty.
Comment
I.C. s 18-116.
If specific intent, state of mind, purpose or motive is an issue and the issue of voluntary intoxication is raised, give this instruction and ICJI 1503.
This instruction should be given only if there is evidence that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated when committing the offense. See Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 116 S.Ct. 2013, 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996); State v. Ransom, 137 Idaho 560, 50 P.3d 1055 (Ct. App. 2002).
[Revised July 2005]
Provenance
- Source
- isc.idaho.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-21
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
8c929f57f03cb988f83afadf674618a506f64f3e73fbe2ebf23c2ed86cdc89c3
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.