Lexplug logoLexplug

Whisler v. State

Nevada Supreme Court
116 P.3d 59, 121 Nev. 401 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Driving Under the Influence (DUI) under Nevada law is a strict liability offense; therefore, a defendant's lack of knowledge or intent regarding their impairment is not a valid defense.


Facts:

  • In March 2001, witnesses observed Douglas Whisler stumbling and weaving before getting into his vehicle and driving away.
  • The witnesses followed Whisler and observed his vehicle repeatedly weaving in and out of its travel lane.
  • Upon arriving at his residence, Whisler was unable to stand without leaning on his car and did not seem to understand questions posed to him.
  • A responding police officer observed Whisler was unsteady, shaking, slurring his speech, and subsequently failed field sobriety tests.
  • Whisler, who had a chronic spinal condition, admitted to taking Vicodin, but had also obtained carisoprodol and Valium while on a recent trip to Mexico.
  • On the day of the incident, Whisler had been taking the carisoprodol every three to four hours.
  • A blood test revealed high levels of carisoprodol, diazepam (Valium), and their metabolites, all of which are central nervous system depressants.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Douglas Whisler with driving under the influence of a controlled substance or chemicals in district court.
  • Whisler filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior 1998 felony DUI conviction.
  • The district court (the trial court) denied the motion, ruling the prior conviction would be admissible for impeachment purposes if Whisler testified.
  • Whisler also requested a jury instruction that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not involuntarily intoxicated, which the district court denied.
  • A jury found Whisler guilty.
  • The district court sentenced Whisler to one to three years of incarceration.
  • Whisler (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

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 Nevada's DUI statute, NRS 484.379, require the State to prove that a defendant willfully became intoxicated, thereby allowing for a defense of involuntary intoxication by medication?


Opinions:

Majority - Parraguirre, J.

No. Nevada's DUI statute does not include willful intoxication as an element of the offense, making it a strict liability crime. The court reasoned that knowledge of one's intoxication is not an element of DUI, and absence of such knowledge is not a defense. Citing its precedent in Slinkard v. State, the court affirmed that requiring the State to prove a defendant's knowledge of their impairment would create an unmanageable burden and undermine the purpose of DUI statutes, which is to protect the public. The court clarified that the word 'willfully' in the charging information applied to the act of driving the vehicle, not the act of becoming impaired. Therefore, Whisler's defense that he was involuntarily intoxicated by medication was without merit.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms that DUI is a strict liability offense in Nevada, effectively closing the door on defenses based on a defendant's subjective lack of awareness of their impairment. The court prioritizes public safety over the defendant's mental state concerning their intoxication. This precedent solidifies the principle that drivers are responsible for the effects of any substance they ingest, whether legal, prescribed, or illicit, before operating a vehicle. Consequently, it lowers the prosecutorial burden in DUI cases by removing the need to prove the defendant's mens rea regarding their state of impairment.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Whisler v. State (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"