City of Missoula v. Paffhausen
289 P.3d 141
Mont.2012Background
- Paffhausen was arrested for DUI after driving with slow, slurred speech and alcohol odor; she refused a breath sample and contested involuntary intoxication and necessity defenses.
- City moved in limine to exclude involuntary intoxication as a defense because DUI is an absolute liability offense; officers’ testimony about date-rape drugs was also challenged as hearsay.
- Municipal Court granted the motions, ruling involuntary intoxication is unavailable for DUI and excluding witnesses; District Court affirmed.
- Court acknowledges DUI elements: driving, on public ways, while under the influence; DUI is an absolute liability offense with no required mental state.
- Court allows automatism as an affirmative defense, on notice and pre-trial hearing conditions, and remands for further proceedings; alternative constitutional challenge deemed moot on remand.
- The dissent argues involuntary intoxication should be barred for DUI under Montana law and Illinois-based interpretations, urging affirmance of the lower court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether automatism is available for DUI | Paffhausen seeks automatism to negate voluntary act | State asserts no automatism for absolute-liability DUI | Automatism allowed; remand for prima facie showing and trial court instructions |
| Whether officers may testify about drugging and unknowingly driving | Officers’ knowledge relevant to automatism defense | Evidence improper or hearsay; not relevant to DUI | Officers may testify if proper foundation is laid; remanded for trial proper foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korell, 213 Mont. 316, 690 P.2d 992 (1984) (discusses automatism and voluntary act defenses within Montana code)
- State v. Leprowse, 2009 MT 387, 353 Mont. 312, 221 P.3d 648 (2009) (compulsion defense recognized; automatism discussed in DUI context)
- State v. Weller, 2009 MT 168, 350 Mont. 485, 208 P.3d 834 (2009) (involuntary intoxication defense not available where DUI lacks mental-state element)
- State v. Larson, 2010 MT 236, 358 Mont. 156, 243 P.3d 1130 (2010) (foundation issues for expert testimony in impairment cases)
- State v. Nobach, 2002 MT 91, 309 Mont. 342, 46 P.3d 618 (2002) (limits on expert testimony regarding drug impairment)
- State v. Gregoroff, 287 Mont. 1, 951 P.2d 578 (1997) (admissibility of expert testimony in DUI contexts related to impairment)