Massachusetts Driving Medication Jury Instructions Prescription Involuntary Intoxication,Lawyers

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

COMMONWEALTH vs. LISE J. BISHOP.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

December 11, 2009, Argued

October 15, 2010, Decided

Factual Background:

The defendant was stopped in the middle of the road in the town of Yarmouth. The car door was open, blocking the street. She appeared to be very intoxicated; she was arrested and handcuffed with her hands in front of her because she had difficulty standing and needed her hands to steady herself. The defendant testified that she remembered having two drinks and dinner with her husband in a restaurant earlier in the evening, and nothing else until she was placed in a cell after being arrested. At the time, she was taking fluoxetine, an anti-depressant prescription. jury convicted the defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of G. L. c. 90, 24

Issue:

Whether trial judge’s instructions to the jury on the issue of involuntary intoxication were erroneous and created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?

Observation and Holding:

Specifically, the judge instructed the jury: “The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if his or her intoxication was caused solely by an involuntary

intoxication

by prescribed medication. This requires that the defendant had not received the warnings as to its use, had no knowledge or reason to anticipate the intoxicating effects of the medication, and h ad no reason to inquire of his or her physician concerning the possible effects of the medication. The court held this instruction as proper.

See

Commonwealth v. Wallace

, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 358, 358-359, 365 (1982). See also Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court, Instruction 5.400, Operating Under the Influence of Drugs, n.4 (2009). The judge also told the jury that, “the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol was

one

of the causes of the diminished capacity to operate a motor vehicle safely. If the Commonwealth has failed to prove that, the defendant is entitled to be found not guilty, to be acquitted.” (Emphasis added). This instruction was also proper. The court observed that we start by noting that this defendant never raised a defense of lack of criminal responsibility due to mental illness. Nor did she argue that the prescription medication she took was itself sufficient to cause her intoxication, independent of whether she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She argued only that her intoxication was caused by a combination of alcohol and her prescription drugs, and that she was unaware that the combination would impair her ability to drive.

In sum, the trial judge clearly informed the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that alcohol was at least one cause of the defendant’s diminished capacity to operate a motor vehicle safely; the judge also told the jurors that the defendant was entitled to an acquittal if her intoxication was involuntary due solely to prescribed medication. These instructions were proper and the defendant was entitled to nothing further on that issue.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York,

North Carolina

& California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com