Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Hammond

The Supreme Court of New Jersey
571 A.2d 942 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, as provided for in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, is not applicable to the motor vehicle violation of driving while intoxicated because such violations are not considered 'offenses' under the Code.


Facts:

  • Theodore Hammond hosted a dinner party where a friend, Joe Hovanec, made him a mixed vodka drink, and he also consumed one and a half to two glasses of wine.
  • Later, at another friend's (Henry Spence) house, Hammond asked for fruit juice.
  • As a practical joke, Spence secretly mixed a substantial amount of vodka into Hammond's cranberry juice, disguising the taste of alcohol.
  • Unaware of the vodka, Hammond drank two cups of the spiked juice at Spence's home and another cup in a car on the way to a bar.
  • Feeling sick at the bar, Hammond decided to drive his own car home, stating he needed to get home before he 'unglued' and because a storm was approaching.
  • At 2:27 a.m., a police officer observed Hammond driving erratically, including drifting between lanes, braking excessively, and nearly hitting a tree.
  • The officer pulled Hammond over, observed signs of severe intoxication, and administered a breathalyzer test, which registered a blood alcohol concentration of .20 and .21.
  • An expert witness for the defense was prepared to testify that Hammond could have consumed the spiked drinks without tasting the alcohol.

Procedural Posture:

  • Theodore Hammond was found guilty of driving while intoxicated in Municipal Court, which rejected his factual claim but noted that involuntary intoxication would have been a valid defense.
  • Hammond appealed his conviction to the Law Division.
  • The Law Division affirmed the conviction but stated that it did not accept the Municipal Court's view that involuntary intoxication is a defense to a DWI charge.
  • Hammond appealed to the Appellate Division.
  • The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the involuntary intoxication defense can apply to a DWI violation, and remanded the case for a new trial.
  • The State of New Jersey (appellant) petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which the court granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the involuntary intoxication defense, as defined in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8), apply to a charge of driving while intoxicated under the State's Motor Vehicle Act (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50)?


Opinions:

Majority - Handler, J.

No, the involuntary intoxication defense under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice does not apply to a charge of driving while intoxicated under the State's Motor Vehicle Act. The court reasoned that driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a motor vehicle violation, not a criminal 'offense' as defined by the Code of Criminal Justice. The legislative history demonstrates a clear intent to treat motor vehicle violations separately from the general criminal laws. Furthermore, DWI is an absolute liability offense, meaning the prosecution only needs to prove the act of driving while intoxicated, without regard to the defendant's mental state or how the intoxication occurred. Allowing a defense based on subjective factors like 'involuntariness' would contradict the legislative purpose of creating an objective, per se standard for DWI based on blood alcohol concentration to efficiently remove dangerous drivers from the road and protect public safety.



Analysis:

This decision firmly establishes driving while intoxicated in New Jersey as a strict liability, quasi-criminal offense, completely separate from the culpability framework of the general criminal code. By precluding the involuntary intoxication defense, the court reinforced the legislature's focus on the objective fact of impairment, rather than the driver's subjective state of mind. This precedent significantly narrows the available defenses in DWI cases, prioritizing the public policy goal of road safety over traditional criminal law principles of mens rea, and solidifies the move towards objective, science-based enforcement of drunk driving laws.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Hammond (1990) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Hammond