Whisler v. State

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Douglas Whisler’s conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance or chemical. The court held that evidence of Whisler’s prior felony DUI conviction was admissible for impeachment and to address his claimed involuntary intoxication defense. It also held that knowledge of intoxication was not an element of the Nevada DUI statute and that carisoprodol qualified as a chemical under NRS 484.379.

Holdings

1. A defendant may appeal a definitive unfavorable in limine ruling admitting a prior conviction even when the defendant preemptively introduces the conviction at trial.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Whisler's prior felony DUI conviction for impeachment and limited purposes related to knowledge of impairment and absence of mistake.
3. Knowledge or willfulness concerning intoxication or impairment is not an element of a violation of NRS 484.379, and lack of knowledge of intoxication or impairment is not a defense to a Nevada DUI charge.
4. A defendant may be convicted under NRS 484.379 based on driving under the influence of carisoprodol because carisoprodol qualifies as a chemical, even though it is not itself a scheduled controlled substance in Nevada.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Whisler preserved appellate review of the definitive in limine ruling by preemptively introducing his prior felony conviction at trial.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Whisler's prior felony DUI conviction for impeachment and related limited purposes.
3. Whether Nevada DUI law recognizes involuntary intoxication by medication or requires the State to prove that the defendant knowingly or willfully became intoxicated.
4. Whether carisoprodol, although not itself a scheduled controlled substance in Nevada, qualifies as a chemical under NRS 484.379.

Disposition

affirmed