Alcohol, Drugs and Domestic Violence Charges in Michigan: Is "I Was Drunk" a Defense?

No. In Michigan, being drunk or high is not a defense to domestic assault or to any other crime. MCL 768.37(1) says "it is not a defense to any crime that the defendant was, at that time, under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, including a controlled substance, other substance or compound, or combination of alcoholic liquor, drug, or other substance or compound."^[1] The statute has one narrow exception, for an unforeseeable reaction to a legally obtained and properly used medication.^[2]

This page explains the rule, the exception, why older sources say something different, and the other ways alcohol and drugs affect a domestic violence case.

What MCL 768.37 says

The statute has two operative parts.

Subsection	Rule	Who has to prove it
(1) General rule	Being under the influence of, or impaired by, a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, controlled substance or other substance is not a defense to any crime.[1]	Not applicable; it is a bar, not a defense.
(2) Exception	It is an affirmative defense to a specific intent crime that the defendant voluntarily consumed a legally obtained and properly used medication or other substance and did not know and reasonably should not have known that he or she would become intoxicated or impaired.[2]	The defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence.[2]

"Consumed" is defined broadly. It means to have eaten, drunk, ingested, inhaled, injected or topically applied the substance, or otherwise introduced it into the body.^[3]

Jurors hear the rule in the same terms. The model instruction says: "It is not a defense that the defendant was under the influence of or impaired by a voluntarily and knowingly consumed alcoholic liquor, drug, controlled substance, or a combination of them."^[4]

Why older sources say intoxication can negate intent

MCL 768.37 was added by 2002 PA 366. It took effect on September 1, 2002, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.^[3] The Michigan Supreme Court has described the statute as having "abolished the defense of voluntary intoxication except in one narrow circumstance."^[5]

That history matters because of how assault is classified. Michigan's model jury instructions state that all assaults are specific intent crimes.^[6] The Supreme Court has said that the enactment of MCL 768.37 "significantly diminished the need to categorize crimes as being either 'specific' or 'general' intent crimes."^[5] As of October 2026 the statute controls: voluntary intoxication is not a defense to "any crime," whatever kind of intent the crime requires.^[1]

The opposite mistake also appears: describing domestic assault as a crime that requires no particular intent. The instructions say otherwise. The defendant must have intended to commit a battery or to make the other person reasonably fear an immediate battery.^[7][6] The prosecutor still has to prove that intent beyond a reasonable doubt.^[8] What the statute removes is the argument that voluntary intoxication is the reason the intent was missing.

The medication exception

Subsection (2) is narrow, and each part of it has to be shown.^[2]

1. A specific intent crime. The exception applies only to a specific intent crime.^[2] The model instructions classify all assaults that way.^[6]
2. A legally obtained substance. The medication or other substance must have been legally obtained.^[2]
3. Proper use. It must have been properly used.^[2]
4. No reason to expect impairment. The defendant did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that he or she would become intoxicated or impaired.^[2]
5. Effect on intent. Under the jury instruction, the defendant is not guilty if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she lacked the required intent because of that consumption.^[4]

Unlike self-defense, this is a defense on which the defendant carries the burden of proof.^[2][9] A preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not, which is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is the defendant who has to meet it.^[2][10]

In practical terms, the kind of material that bears on these points includes the prescription and pharmacy records, the label and warning information that came with the drug, evidence of the dose actually taken, and whether alcohol or anything else was taken with it. A reaction that the package warnings describe, or one caused by mixing a medication with alcohol, raises a question under the "reasonably should not have known" language. How a court would resolve it depends on the facts.

Involuntary or unknowing intoxication

The statute is limited by its own words to substances that were "voluntarily and knowingly consumed."^[1] The committee that writes the model jury instructions notes that neither the instruction nor MCL 768.37 addresses involuntary or unknowing consumption of an intoxicant as a defense to a crime.^[4]

The sources reviewed for this guide therefore do not state what rule applies when a person was drugged without knowing it. This page does not guess. A person in that situation should raise it with a lawyer early, because evidence such as toxicology results is time-sensitive.

Intoxication is different from a mental condition

Michigan law treats mental illness and intellectual disability separately from intoxication. On July 31, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v Madison, overruling a 2001 decision and holding that the legal-insanity statute does not foreclose diminished-capacity evidence offered to contest the mental element of a specific-intent crime.^[11][12] The Court reasoned that diminished capacity is distinct from the insanity defense, so the insanity statute has no bearing on the admissibility of that evidence.^[13] The ruling is about what evidence may be presented on intent; as of the August 31, 2026 edition of the model jury instructions, no instruction responding to it had been adopted, and the sources reviewed for this guide do not show how it applies to an assault charge.^[12][13] It did not change MCL 768.37, which remains in force as written.^[3] Nor is a person considered legally insane solely because he or she was under the influence of voluntarily consumed alcohol or controlled substances.^[14]

A defendant who intends to introduce expert evidence relating to mental illness or intellectual disability bearing on specific intent must give the prosecutor written notice at least 30 days before trial, or at another time the court directs.^[15] See Accident and lack of intent.

Other ways alcohol and drugs affect the case

Statements made while intoxicated

Whether the accused was "injured, intoxicated, drugged, or ill" when he or she gave a statement to police is one of the factors Michigan courts consider in deciding whether the statement was voluntary.^[16] It is one factor among many; the test is the totality of the circumstances.^[17] See Motions to suppress evidence and Should you talk to police?

Witness reliability

Jurors are told to consider whether a witness was able to see or hear clearly and whether the witness seemed to have a good memory.^[18] Evidence that any witness was intoxicated at the time can be weighed under those questions.

Bond conditions

A court setting conditions of pretrial release may order the defendant not to use alcohol or illicitly use any controlled substance, and to participate in a substance abuse testing or monitoring program.^[19] See Bond conditions in domestic violence cases and GPS tether and alcohol monitoring on bond.

Sentencing and probation

After a conviction, the conditions of probation a court may order include drug treatment and mental health or substance abuse counseling.^[20] See Probation conditions in domestic violence cases.

What people get wrong

• "Assault is a specific intent crime, so being drunk is a defense." Not since September 1, 2002.^[1][3]
• "I don't remember it, so they can't prove I meant it." Intent may be proved by what the defendant said and did and by any other facts and circumstances in evidence.^[21]
• "My medication caused it, so the charge has to be dropped." The medication exception is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, and it requires that the drug was legally obtained, properly used, and not reasonably expected to impair.^[2]
• "The other person was drunk too, so it evens out." A witness's intoxication can bear on how jurors weigh that witness's testimony; it does not change the elements.^[18][7]

More common misconceptions are collected in Michigan domestic violence myths.