C.A. 3rd
C063527
The Third Appellate District affirmed a judgment as modified. The court held in the published portion of its opinion that the question whether a defendant knew of the prescription drug Ambiens intoxicating effects was not an element of the charged crime of driving under the influence. The court held further that the CALCRIM No. 3425 jury instruction on unconsciousness is flawed for being unnecessarily ambiguous and because it directs jurors to find a defendant not guilty if they have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was conscious at the time he committed his crime.
