Another potential defense in a Chester County DUI is involuntary intoxication. Essentially, if you are in a position where you feel you were involuntarily intoxicated, you must let your Chester County DUI lawyer know immediately.
Pennsylvania, like many other jurisdictions, either by statute or caselaw, specifically limits the availability of a voluntary intoxication defense but does not specify whether an involuntary intoxication defense is available. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 308. The issue of whether involuntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of driving under the influence (DUI) is unclear in Pennsylvania. Moreover, in the context of a DUI prosecution, assuming the defense applies, a defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Chester County defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication by a preponderance of the evidence.
Bear in mind, to prove DUI,
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.
In a case where the defense did not sustain their burden of proving the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was in Commonwealth v. Smith, 2003 PA Super 301 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). In this case, the defendant 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. The court disagreed and affirmed her conviction.