"Involuntary Intoxication" Defense to a DUI Charge

Because driving while intoxicated is a strict liability offense, meaning that it does not require specific intent, the defense of "involuntary intoxication" is often difficult to assert. Involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal culpability when it is shown that: (1) the accused has exercised no independent judgment or volition in taking the intoxicant; and (2) as a result of his intoxication, the accused did not know that his conduct was wrong or was incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirement of the law he allegedly violated.

The success of the involuntary intoxication defense is dependent upon the law in any particular jurisdiction. Some states recognize the defense as it developed under case law; other states recognize it because of a statute. Still others impose such a high burden on the accused to demonstrate that the intoxication was involuntary that the defense is practically frustrated.

The basis of the defense is the inherent unfairness in the imposition of a criminal penalty upon someone who is incapable of knowing that the conduct was wrong. Thus, in those cases where the defense has been successfully asserted, the intoxication was found to be involuntary or caused by trickery or force; for example, where a person unknowingly consumed punch spiked with liquor or consumed prescription drugs without a warning of the drug's intoxicating effects.

Nevertheless, most jurisdictions do not allow the defense in cases of intoxication, believing it would undermine the protection to the public from the dangers of intoxicated drivers and would frustrate the efficient and vigorous enforcement of the laws against driving while intoxicated. Moreover these jurisdictions persuasively argue that because involuntary intoxication is a defense to criminal culpability, and proof of culpable mental state is not required in prosecutions for driving while intoxicated, the defense is simply inapplicable.