Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.