PA DUI Conviction Based Upon Drinking Gasoline

Posted in DUI on March 22, 2026

In Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 2006), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled on a challenge to the PA DUI law and whether it prohibited driving under the influence of gasoline.

Factual Background

Roser was stopped by police after he was observed driving over the center and fog lines and almost striking another vehicle. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol on Roser’s breath, and Roser had difficulty standing. The officer felt that Roser was very intoxicated, so Roser was arrested for suspicion of DUI. Roser refused to submit to the blood draw, so the police were unable to obtain a blood alcohol concentration level.  Roser was charged with DUI under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(a)(1), which prohibits a person from driving after consuming alcohol to the extent that the driver was rendered incapable of safe driving. Basically, the charge alleges that the driver was too drunk on alcohol to drive safely.

Testimony at Trial

At trial, Roser tried to assert a creative defense and testified that he drank half a bottle of Turtle Wax Bug and Tar Remover and approximately 32 ounces of gasoline in an attempt to commit suicide. His argument was simple, he wasn’t drunk on alcohol, he was under the influence of gasoline. Because his DUI charge was based upon alcohol  consumption, he had a creative defense. 

The law is like a game of chess in that when one sides makes a move, the other side often has a counter-move. Here, after the Roser testified, the prosecution was permitted to chage the DUI charge to one that prohibited being under the influence of drugs while driving. The DUI defense attorney objected to the change in charges, but the judge permitted it. Roser was convicted of a DUI that prohibited a person from being under the influence of drugs and alcohol to the extent that the driver was incapable of safe driving. 

Key Legal Issue

Roser appelaed on two grounds

1. Roser argued that the prosecution should not have been permitted to change the DUI charge from alcohol only to a charge that allowed for a conviction for consumption of the combination of drugs and alcohol
2. Roser argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that gasoline and the bug and tar remover were a “drug.” The argument was that the prosecution needed to present expert testimony to show that the substances would cause a person to be impaired and thereby incapable of driving safetly.

Superior Court’s Holding

On the first issue, the Superior Court held that the addition of the drug-DUI charge at trial was legally permitted. The Court noted that the charge “did not change the factual scenario insofar as Appellant drove a vehicle while highly intoxicated,” and the Court accepted the prosecution argument that the charge could not be added previously becusae there was no actual evidence to support the charge until after Roser testified at trial that he drank the gasoline and bug and tar remover. 

The Superior Court also rejected the defendant’s second argument, concluding that:

• The definition of “drug” under Pennsylvania law is broad

• Substances do not need to be controlled substances to qualify

• The jury was properly instructed using a definition consistent with the Controlled Substance Act

• Roser’s testimony that he lost consciousness and his mind was “racing uncontrollably was sufficient to show that he had consumed a “drug”, so no expert testimony was needed

Why This Case Matters

Expands the Scope of DUI Liability

Roser makes clear that DUI charges are not limited to alcohol or controlled substances. Any substance that impairs a driver—regardless of its legal status—can support a DUI conviction.

Supports Use of Circumstantial Evidence

The decision confirms that impairment can be established through:

• Observations of behavior

• Defendant’s own statements

• Circumstantial evidence of ingestion and effects

Limits the Need for Experts in Certain Cases

While expert testimony is often used in drug DUI cases, Roser demonstrates that it is not always required—particularly where the effects of a substance are очевид or admitted.

Key Takeaway

Commonwealth v. Roser underscores that Pennsylvania DUI law is centered on impairment, not labels. Whether the substance is alcohol, a controlled drug, or an unconventional chemical, the key question is whether it affected the driver’s ability to operate a vehicle safely.

If you are charged with a PA DUI, contact an experienced DUI attorney for a free case evaluation.