Intoxication shall not be a defense to a criminal charge, but in any prosecution for an offense evidence of intoxication of the defendant may be offered by the defendant whenever it is relevant to negate an element of the crime charged, provided when recklessness or criminal negligence is an element of the crime charged, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of or disregards or fails to perceive a risk which he would have been aware of had he not been intoxicated, such unawareness, disregard or failure to perceive shall be immaterial. As used in this section, “intoxication” means a substantial disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 7.)

Cited. 172 C. 65; 173 C. 35; 176 C. 224; 178 C. 480. Defendant is entitled, as matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction when evidence under section is before jury. Id., 704. Cited. 184 C. 121; 185 C. 63; 186 C. 414; 189 C. 611; 193 C. 632; 196 C. 341; 198 C. 560; Id., 644; 199 C. 102; 201 C. 190; 204 C. 240; 209 C. 75; 210 C. 481; 212 C. 195; 217 C. 648; 223 C. 41; Id., 273; 234 C. 139.

Cited. 1 CA 260; 6 CA 701; 10 CA 643; 11 CA 122; 16 CA 358; 22 CA 521; 23 CA 315; Id., 502; 24 CA 678; 25 CA 456; 27 CA 73; 35 CA 699; 37 CA 404; 41 CA 361; 44 CA 818. Application of section. 51 CA 345. Trial court did not improperly exclude proffered evidence re defendant's claim of intoxication at time of murder. 91 CA 169. While intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge, evidence of defendant's intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of crime of murder; however, intoxication does not automatically negate intent. 95 CA 263.