State v. Hammond

571 A.2d 942 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, had a small dinner party at his home. While he was cooking dinner, a friend, Joe Hovanec, made him a mixed vodka drink, which he drank at about nine o'clock. At dinner, D and his three friends shared a bottle of wine, of which D testified he drank one and a half to two glasses. After dinner, they decided to visit the new home of Henry Spence. At Spence's house, at around midnight, D asked for some fruit juice. Spence prepared a mixture of cranberry juice and vodka, concocted in such a way as to disguise any taste of alcohol. This was supposed to be a joke. D did not know Spence had put vodka in the juice. He drank two cups at Spence's home, and another cup in the car on the way to a bar, consuming approximately ten to twelve ounces of vodka. D testified that he was not 'feeling well' at that point, but felt obligated to proceed to the bar since he had agreed to meet Hovanec there. Spence drove D's car to the bar. At the bar, Hovanec bought D a beer which he did not drink. D said he felt sick, and Spence had left the bar. Hovanec offered D a ride home but D refused the ride. D left to go home. Officer Reading observed D's vehicle being driven by someone who was obviously impaired. D was signaled to pull over and stop. On exiting D stumbled, grabbing the car door for support as he fell. D could hardly walk, had bloodshot eyes, slurred his speech, and smelled of alcohol. D, Spence, and Hovanec testified for the defense about the involuntary intoxication. The court found D guilty, giving credence to the police report. D appealed. The court found that the record indicated beyond a reasonable doubt that D had operated his vehicle while intoxicated and thus was guilty. It affirmed and D appealed. The Appellate Division reversed holding that the involuntary intoxication defense can apply to a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. P appealed.