Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 8/19/2003
Commonwealth v. Smith
Citations
- 831 A.2d 636
- 2003 Pa. Super. 301
- 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2426
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that, where the defendant voluntarily consumed alcohol and prescription medication without regard for its “synergistic effect,” the defendant did not establish an involuntary intoxication defense to driving under the influence
- noting that “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”
- finding a defendant's testimony alone insufficient to justify an involuntary intoxication defense without expert testimony to establish the effect that the combination of drugs would have had on the user
- finding a defendant’s self-serving testimony alone insufficient to justify an involuntary intoxication defense without expert testimony to establish the effect that the combination of drugs would have had on the user
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Melvin, Lally-Green, Bender
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. MobleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-01-14· cited 123×
- Farmer, Kody WilliamCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 2013-10-09· cited 86×
- Joseph Wallace v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCIThird Circuit· 2021-06-22· cited 69×
- Commonwealth v. DiPanfiloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-04-16· cited 50×
- Marone v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver LicensingCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-03-03· cited 16×
- Commonwealth v. GriffithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-07-02· cited 10×
- Richard Dorsey v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 2021-01-22· cited 1×
- State of Arizona v. Shawn De Nean EdmistenCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-03-23
- Commonwealth v. GoldhaberBedford County Court of Common Pleas· 2007-01-26
- Commonwealth v. UlrichBerks County Court of Common Pleas· 2010-10-04
- Com. v. Whitcomb, H.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-08-20
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Commonwealth v. MeadowsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-02-28· cited 108×
- Commonwealth v. GroffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-09-20· cited 103×
- Commonwealth v. PalmerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-04-19· cited 80×
- City of Minneapolis v. AltimusSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1976-01-09· cited 67×
- Commonwealth v. HicksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-01-24· cited 60×
- State v. MriglotWashington Supreme Court· 1977-05-26· cited 39×
- Commonwealth v. CollinsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-11-04· cited 38×
- State v. GardnerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1999-08-11· cited 25×
- Commonwealth v. TodaroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-06-18· cited 18×
- State v. LucasSupreme Court of Iowa· 1985-05-22· cited 11×
- Commonwealth v. GriscomSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-12-17· cited 9×
- State v. MriglotCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1976-05-12· cited 7×
- Commonwealth v. DriverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-05-31· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.