Commonwealth v. Smith - 2003 PA Super 301, 831 A.2d 636

Rule:

To prove a violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3731(a)(1), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must show: (1) that the defendant was the operator of a motor vehicle; and (2) that while operating the vehicle, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to such a degree as to render him or her incapable of safe driving. To establish the second element, it must be shown that alcohol has substantially impaired the normal mental and physical faculties required to safely operate the vehicle. Substantial impairment, in this context, means a diminution or enfeeblement in the ability to exercise judgment, to deliberate or to react prudently to changing circumstances and conditions. Evidence that the driver was not in control of himself, such as failing to pass a field sobriety test, may establish that the driver was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe driving, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of erratic or unsafe driving.

Facts:

Karen Smith stated at her trial that she had consumed alcohol while wearing a prescribed "duragesic" patch for pain, and she testified she did not realize that the patch would heighten the effects of alcohol. She argued on appeal from her conviction that she had established the affirmative defense of "involuntary intoxication," thereby negating the state of mind necessary to support a conviction of DUI.

Issue:

Would Pennsylvania law characterize intoxication produced by the voluntary consumption of a prescription drug and alcohol as "involuntary," if the defendant did not realize that such consumption would have a synergistic effect?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court disagreed and affirmed her conviction. Pennsylvania law did not specify whether an involuntary intoxication defense was available, and other jurisdictions that allowed that defense did so, among other situations, where unexpected intoxication resulted from a medically prescribed drug. In Smith’s case, however, she was not claiming that the pain patch by itself had caused the involuntary intoxication. Rather, she was asserting that the pain patch heightened the effects of alcohol, which she had voluntarily consumed. The court held that Pennsylvania law would not characterize intoxication produced by the voluntary consumption of a prescription drug and alcohol as "involuntary," even if Smith did not realize that such consumption would have a synergistic effect.