Background
Chad Christopher Carlson was charged with incest with a child by a stepparent and third-degree sexual assault of his step-daughter, A.B. In October 2022, Carlson proceeded to a bench trial after initially waiving his jury trial right in January 2022 when he believed he would accept a plea agreement. At trial, the victim testified that Carlson had engaged in a pattern of inappropriate touching beginning when she was twelve or thirteen years old.
On the day of the alleged crimes, Carlson had been ill with stomach flu for four days, unable to work or eat significantly. He had recently been prescribed Chantix (to help quit smoking) and took two doses that day. In the afternoon, after completing yard work, Carlson consumed four beers and between three and five mixed drinks in his basement while taking medication for his heart condition. He had been warned by both his prescribing physician and pharmacist to limit alcohol consumption with Chantix.
Carlson awoke from a nap feeling like he was “in a cloud” and went to A.B.’s room, where he sexually touched her. He later told A.B. he did not know what he was doing and blamed his behavior on alcohol. A.B.’s mother called law enforcement the next morning, and Carlson was cooperative with the investigation.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed Carlson’s conviction on both counts. On the involuntary intoxication defense, the court held that Wisconsin law does not permit the defense when a defendant voluntarily consumes alcohol in combination with prescription medication, regardless of whether the defendant was specifically warned to abstain from alcohol. The court rejected Carlson’s argument that the prohibition in State v. Gardner should be limited to situations where alcohol consumption is contrary to medical advice. The involuntary intoxication statute requires that intoxication be “involuntarily produced,” and the voluntary mixing of alcohol with any prescription drug—even one taken as prescribed—defeats that requirement.
The court emphasized that under Wisconsin precedent, including State v. Anderson and City of Waukesha v. Godfrey, a person who combines intoxicating substances with medication “does so at his own peril” and is responsible for any resulting mental state. The expert reports Carlson offered actually reinforced this conclusion by acknowledging that his visual hallucinations were “exacerbated by the concomitant use of alcohol.” Carlson’s own statement to law enforcement—that he had a “good buzz going” when entering A.B.’s room and that he blamed alcohol, not Chantix, for his conduct—undermined any claim of involuntary intoxication from the medication.
On the jury trial waiver issue, the court held that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Carlson’s motion to withdraw his waiver. Although courts should exercise discretion “liberally in favor of granting the defendant’s right to a jury trial,” the court properly balanced this against the nearly three-year delay since the crimes, the victim’s expressed trauma concerns, post-pandemic court backlogs, and Carlson’s failure to move for withdrawal until thirty days before trial despite knowing since March 2022 that trial was scheduled for fall 2022.
Key Takeaways
- The involuntary intoxication defense is unavailable as a matter of law when a defendant voluntarily consumes alcohol while taking prescription medication, even if not specifically warned against alcohol on the medication’s label.
- A defendant’s voluntary consumption of alcohol alongside prescribed medication cannot constitute involuntary intoxication because the voluntary aspect is irreconcilable with the statutory requirement of involuntary production.
- Courts may deny motions to withdraw jury trial waivers when withdrawal would substantially delay trial and impede the cause of justice, particularly where the defendant waited months to request withdrawal and victim interests weigh against delay.
- A defendant’s pain medication and pain at the time of a jury trial waiver do not automatically invalidate a knowing waiver if the defendant expressly indicated understanding throughout the colloquy and requested time to consult counsel.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Wisconsin’s involuntary intoxication defense has a firm boundary: a defendant who voluntarily mixes any amount of alcohol with prescription medication—whether or not warned to do so—cannot invoke the defense, even if the medication itself caused the intoxicating effects. This rule applies regardless of the defendant’s awareness of potential side effects or the absence of an alcohol warning on the medication label. The holding reflects the established principle that individuals bear responsibility for the consequences of intentionally combining mind-altering substances, which has significant implications for defendants asserting reduced-capacity defenses based on prescribed medication.
The jury trial waiver ruling reinforces that defendants cannot easily withdraw waivers on the basis of medical conditions present at the time of waiver if they demonstrated understanding during the colloquy and fail to act promptly. Courts must balance defendants’ constitutional rights against victim rights to speedy disposition and the practical needs of criminal justice administration, particularly in post-pandemic backlogs. The decision signals that delay concerns and victim trauma are substantial countervailing factors to a defendant’s late-filed motion to withdraw consent to bench trial.