You have to love a creative OUI defense–even when it fails.
Yesterday the Appeals Court affirmed the conviction of a man who claimed his impairment was due to Rohypnol (i.e., a “roofie”) and not alcohol.
According to court documents, the defendant crashed into a parked car on March 22, 2021. After the crash the defendant became unresponsive while his foot continued to press down on the gas petal.
When police arrived they found a flask on the defendant’s lap and a plastic bottle filled with brown liquid in the cupholder.
Police conducted three field sobriety tests on the defendant who failed them all. Ultimately he was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol.
At trial the defendant testified on his own behalf. He said that he socialized with a woman earlier that night and that he believed she had surreptitiously dropped Rohypnol into his drink at some point before the crash.
Next the defendant presented a physician who testified on the side effects of Rohypnol.
It was a bench trial and the judge was not persuaded. He convicted the defendant of OUI and the defendant’s attorney appealed the verdict.
The Appeals Court sided with the judge and affirmed the verdict:
the defendant’s testimony that he might have ingested Rohypnol was based on speculation. He never saw anyone tamper with his drinks, never sought bloodwork, never saw a physician, and agreed that he was “kind of guessing” that he might have been drugged….Moreover, according to his own expert’s testimony, the defendant’s intoxication was more similar to alcohol intoxication than Rohypnol intoxication because he slurred his speech, struggled to walk, and did not have a memory of that night.
The full text of the opinion is attached below.