Florida DUI Law by Blake Mevis: What Constitutes Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substances

"The Court held that because the State did not exclude reasonable possibility that appellant's impaired condition was due to factors other than alcohol or controlled substances."

"The court ruled that an involuntary intoxication defense was available in a DUI where the defendant mistakenly took an impairing drug believing it to be a different non-impairing substance."

"The court upheld a finding that the defendant violated community control were there was no proof he consumed alcohol, but there was a urine test that showed he had consumed an unknown amount of three prescription drugs, for which he had a prescription, and there was expert testimony that excessive use of those substances could explain the impaired behavior that officers observed."

"The court concluded that giving a jury instruction of 'the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that while driving or while in actual physical control of the vehicle, the defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher and/or controlled substance.' constituted fundamental error because having cocaine in the system is not a crime unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired by the substance."

"A case similar to Sabre, the court found no error in instructing the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 'While driving or while in actual physical control of the vehicle, the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages or a control substance to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or higher."

"In prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), state was required to prove that defendant's faculties were “impaired,” rather than merely “weakened.”"