Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
What Constitutes Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substances
State v. Annis, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. April 19,2001)
"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."
Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998)
"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."
Hoffman v. State, 743 So. 2d 130 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1999)
"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."
Sabree v. State, 978 So. 2d 840 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2008)
"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."
Whynot v. State, 987 So. 2d 739 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2008)
"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."
Shaw v. State, 783 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2001)
"In prosecution for driving under the influence (DUI), state was required to prove that defendant's faculties were “impaired,” rather than merely “weakened.”"
Search the Library to locate books, e-books, videos, articles, journals...
Other Search Options