State v. Broadrick

1980 OK CR 107, 620 P.2d 450, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 216
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 4, 1980
DocketNo. O-79-435
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1980 OK CR 107 (State v. Broadrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Broadrick, 1980 OK CR 107, 620 P.2d 450, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 216 (Okla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION

CORNISH, Presiding Judge:

The pivotal issue of this State appeal on a reversed question of law is whether “toluene,” a substance contained in paint vapors, is a “drug” under the provisions of Laws 1978, c. 108, § 1, now 47 O.S.Supp.1979, § ll-902(b), Persons .Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or of Drugs;

Title 47 O.S.Supp.1979, § ll-902(b) provides as follows:

It is unlawful . . . for any person who is under the influence of any substances included in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act or who is under the influence of any other drug to a degree which renders, him incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle to drive, operate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle within this State. [Footnote omitted.]

At the non-jury trial it was stipulated that the appellee was driving under the influence of toluene as the result of inhaling paint vapors from gold paint. It was further stipulated that a toxicologist from the State medical examiner’s office would [451]*451testify that toluene was not technically or medically a drug in a strict and literal sense. However, in his opinion, it would qualify as a drug by virtue of a layman’s definition and its effect on the body. His testimony would further be that the effect of inhaling metallic paint would be basically the same as the effect on a person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

The State argues that the term “any other drug” should be construed in a nontechnical sense so as to include any substance which has an intoxicating effect. The ap-pellee urges that because toluene is not intended to affect the structure or function of the body of man or other animals, it does not fall within the drug definition.

Toluene is a light, mobile, liquid, aromatic hydrocarbon that is used chiefly as a solvent and a raw material for trinitro-tolu-ene dyes, pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. [Webster’s 3rd International Dictionary 1963, at page 2405]. The term “drug” may be defined by reference to definitions in other statutes.1

Appellee Broadrick argues that because toluene is not listed in The United States Pharmacopoeia, National Formulary XIV, and The Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, that the trial judge’s dismissal was correct. However, we believe a strong argument can be made that toluene falls within Clause 4 of the definition contained in 63 O.S.1971, § l-1401(a) as “an article intended for use as a component of any article specified in Clause 1, 2, or 3,” because toluene is used as a raw material in pharmaceuticals. When viewed as a component in pharmaceuticals, it is not an untenable application of statutory construction to hold that toluene falls within the definition of drugs provided in 63 O.S.1971, § 1-1401(a).

We are further of the opinion that when paint vapors are inhaled for their intoxicating effect, they fall within Clause 3, which includes “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or any other animals.” Also applicable is Laws 1979, e. 105, § 1, now 37 O.S.Supp.1979, § 8(A), which provides penalties for consuming or inhaling intoxicants in public places.2

[452]*452We find the trial court erred in dismissing the case. We hold that toluene is a drug within the meaning of 47 O.S.Supp. 1979, § ll-902(b), supra. The judgment is REVERSED.

BRETT and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Bond
493 N.W.2d 826 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1980 OK CR 107, 620 P.2d 450, 1980 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-broadrick-oklacrimapp-1980.