explaining that it is now virtually.universally accepted that a person with a blood alcohol percent of .10 should not be driving, and that such percentage should be accepted as prima facie evidence of intoxication
How later courts described this case
- explaining that it is now virtually.universally accepted that a person with a blood alcohol percent of .10 should not be driving, and that such percentage should be accepted as prima facie evidence of intoxication
- upholding the imposition of absolute criminal liability where the Commonwealth failed to charge or prove culpability pursu ant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731(a)(4), driving with a blood alcohol of .10%, and the defendant was sentenced to less than ninety days imprisonment
- finding that the General Assembly has a compelling interest in protecting citizens against drunk drivers
- stating “there is no constitutional, statutory or common law right to the consumption of any quantity of alcohol before driving”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*266 NIX, Justice,
concurring.
Although I share some of the concerns ably expressed in Mr. Justice Flaherty’s Dissenting Opinion, I am persuaded to join the mandate of the majority based upon the view that a finding of 0.10% necessarily requires the individual consuming such a quantity to be aware of some degree of impairment resulting from the alcoholic intake.