Comments on: Is Automatism or Involuntary Intoxication a Defense to DWI?

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:40:28 +0000

What if a defendant took a benign antibiotic prescribed by a doctor, which had no labelling or indication that it might cause dizziness or that it shouldn’t be taken with alcohol. 2-3 days into the course of medication, the defendant drank a couple of drinks over several hours, drove and received a DUI.

Afterwards the defendant discovers that not only is one of the main actions of this antibiotic is to destroy the very enzyme which helps the human body process alcohol, but that the doctor had also prescribed the medication at twice the common dosage.

Would this be defensible under involuntary intoxication since the amount of alcohol consumed would’ve normally have left them with an alcohol BAC of approx .01-.02?

By: Chad Williams

Chad Williams — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:01:28 +0000

What would be the deal as far as an individual that has many (5) prescriptions in which the has taken on the regular basis then consumed a couple alcoholic beverages, however on all 5 doctor prescribed medications was the lack of a warning label to not consume alcohol while taking. Now this individual then unknowingly got into a vehicle and drove resulting in a DWI. Would this person be held to the same standard as regarded above with the knowing intent to consume alcohol while taking prescription drugs thus waving the Involuntary Intoxication defense??

By: Kennedy

Kennedy — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:47:11 +0000

“This type of legal excuse might be available in circumstances in which the impairment was caused by an innocent mistake on the part of the defendant…”

Do you think a possible legal excuse would include where a driver “accidentally” took the wrong one of her prescribed pills (for instance she thought she took a xanex in the morning but took an ambien instead)? It would seem to me that she would have to use proper care to be certain of which drug she was taking.

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:23:01 +0000

I have a bit of an issue with the decision. I think the court could have left open the possibility that someone’s reaction from drinking could be so far outside of the norm that having, say, 2 drinks on top of meds should not produce that reaction. Here the guy had something like .25, so it’s really difficult to claim he wasn’t drinking a good amount.

By: Shea Denning

Shea Denning — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:37:30 +0000

Sean: If the defendant voluntarily consumed the substance that was affixed with the warning labels you describe, I think the defense of involuntary intoxication or automatism would NOT be available — at least in circumstances in which the defendant had a predictable reaction to the substance.

By: Sean Sandison

Sean Sandison — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:29:01 +0000

I have found the prescription drug situations to be most interesting when the defendant claims an “unintended consequence” or adverse reaction to medication that led them to be essentially not conscious of their actions. Do I read this post right to say that your belief is that we do not have involuntary intoxication or automatism as a defense as long as the prescription label warned to not operate a vehicle or heavy machinery?