"Setakat mana pembelaan mabuk diterima di Mahkamah?"
Dalam kes Abdul Aziz Mohamed Shariff v. PP  Mahkamah Persekutuan antara lain menggariskan:
“To prove intoxication, it is incumbent upon the defence to adduce sufficient evidence to convince the court that this had rendered the accused incapable of
forming the necessary intention or knowledge to commit the crime charged, or that ‘he was by reason of intoxication insane, temporarily or otherwise, at
the time when he committed the crime’.
The existence of evidence that: (a) the appellant had consumed a large quantity of alcohol or that it was even mixed with toddy, coupled with (b) the presence of a strong smell of alcohol, and (c) the opinions of relatives who are not medically qualified, that the appellant was drunk is insufficient to constitute a possible defence of intoxication against the preponderance of evidence indicating that he had intended to cause death to the deceased.”
Pembelaan mabuk ini juga perlu dilihat kepada keterangan/bukti yang melibatkan tindakan dan kelakuan Tertuduh sebelum, semasa dan selepas kejadian berkenaan.
Rujuk: Francis Antonysamy v. PP , Abdul Aziz Mohamed Shariff v. PP , PP v. Ramasamy a/l Sebastian