## Facts

- A police officer observed Karen Smith driving her truck into the oncoming lane and continuing in the wrong lane for about one-tenth of a mile.
- The officer activated emergency lights and stopped Smith; she pulled over but left a large part of the truck protruding into the roadway despite adequate space to park fully off the road.
- When asked to exit, Smith stumbled and staggered.
- The officer observed glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of alcohol.
- Smith admitted she had consumed several beers earlier that evening.
- The officer administered three field sobriety tests, which Smith failed.
- Smith was arrested for DUI under former 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1) (alcohol to a degree rendering a person incapable of safe driving) and transported to a hospital; she refused a blood-alcohol test.
- At a bench trial, Smith testified that she had been wearing a prescribed Duragesic (fentanyl) pain patch while drinking beer and claimed she did not know the patch would increase alcohol’s effects.
- Smith admitted she did not read the patch’s directions or warnings.
- Smith presented no other witnesses or supporting evidence (including no medical testimony) about the patch’s interaction with alcohol.
- The trial court found Smith guilty and imposed a sentence of incarceration; her post-sentence motion was denied, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Is involuntary intoxication (or an involuntary drugged condition) a recognized defense in Pennsylvania, and if so, can a DUI defendant rely on it when she voluntarily consumed alcohol while using a prescribed narcotic pain patch and did not read the warnings?

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court accepted that an involuntary intoxication or involuntary drugged condition defense may be recognized in Pennsylvania in limited circumstances, but held Smith did not meet those limits.
- The court concluded Smith’s impairment stemmed at least in part from her voluntary consumption of alcohol, placing the case within voluntary intoxication rather than involuntary intoxication.
- The court held Smith’s failure to read the patch’s warnings showed negligence, not an “innocent mistake” that could make intoxication involuntary.
- The court noted Smith offered no supporting medical evidence that the Duragesic patch, rather than alcohol, produced the impairment observed by the officer.

## Legal Principles

- To prove DUI under former 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3731(a)(1), the Commonwealth must show (1) the defendant drove, and (2) while driving, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered her incapable of safe driving; incapacity may be shown through observed impairment and failed field sobriety tests, even without chemical testing.
- Pennsylvania law restricts reliance on voluntary intoxication as a defense; any involuntary intoxication defense, to the extent recognized, is narrowly confined.
- Involuntary intoxication generally applies only where intoxication results from coercion, fraud, force, a non-negligent mistake about a substance, an unknown abnormal susceptibility, or a prescribed medication taken as directed without awareness of its intoxicating potential.
- A defendant who voluntarily consumes alcohol generally cannot recharacterize resulting impairment as “involuntary” merely because alcohol interacted with a medication.
- A failure to read available drug directions and warnings is treated as negligence and does not support an involuntary intoxication claim.
- Where a defendant attributes impairment to a drug interaction, the absence of supporting medical evidence may leave the claim speculative and insufficient to establish the defense.

## Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003), affirmed a DUI conviction where the defendant argued that prescription medication made her intoxication involuntary. The court held that any involuntary intoxication defense in Pennsylvania is limited and did not apply because Smith voluntarily drank alcohol, failed to read the medication warnings, and offered no medical support to show the prescribed patch—rather than alcohol—caused her inability to drive safely.


Commonwealth v. Smith, 831 A.2d 636 (2003)