Chocolate Fatality: The Boozy Binge that Led to a Fling with the Law
Ah, the classic DUI defense. You know, the kind where you blame your poor judgment on something utterly ludicrous? Just when you thought you’d heard it all, we find ourselves in Frankfurt, where a driver attempted to spin a yarn about vodka-filled chocolates. Yes, you read that right: vodka-infused confections as a legal defense for a blood alcohol level of 1.32!
1.32 per mille from chocolates? Oh, please!
Picture it: January 2024, Hofheim am Taunus. Our protagonist is cruising down the street—perhaps slightly too enthusiastically—when he boldly decides that red lights are merely suggestions. It’s a bold traffic faux pas, to say the least! But when the police catch up, they discover that this man is not just ignoring the rules of the road; he’s operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration that makes most seasoned pub-goers blush.
So how does our chocolate-loving hero explain himself? With a saga that would make even the most imaginative fiction writer envious! “I was in the sauna,” he claims, “and I had too many infusions.” I mean, who hasn’t found themselves in a sauna, blacking out and waking up to eat… well, chocolate? But wait, it gets better! A benevolent couple offered him a bag of chocolates—the very ones he presumes were filled with vodka. Dark chocolate, mind you, and definitely not an alcohol delivery system! He assumes since he didn’t taste the vodka, there mustn’t have been any. A classic case of “I couldn’t taste the booze, officer!”
The court’s verdict had more cracks than the chocolate itself!
Let’s unpack this delightful nonsense. The court wasn’t having any of it. They brought in expert witnesses who concluded that to reach a dizzying height of 1.32 per mille, our boy would have had to consume anywhere from 0.2 to 0.3 liters of high-proof alcohol. That’s about 132 of those so-called chocolates! I mean, if you think about it, that’s practically a full box of fancy confectionery. At that rate, no one would be able to take their eyes off the enormous truffle-sized ember of denial!
The judges laid it out crystal clear, stating that our driver’s excuse was “absolutely unrealistic.” And who could blame them? If he had stopped after just a taste, there’s no way he could’ve reached the level of “red-faced inebriation” that brought him to the attention of the police. Their dissection of his statements read more like a mini novel than a court verdict: “One chocolate must contain at least one shot of high-proof alcohol!” The crafty chocolate maker who could pull THAT off deserves a medal of honor—or perhaps a warning from the health department.
Moreover, the court noted that it’s a “hardly conceivable” scenario that chocolate bombs filled with such liquid joy could even exist—not even in Belgium! So much for a sweet alibi!
Not the first time a drink led to trouble…
How often does one stumble into this kind of situation, you ask? Well, as many times as people bellyache about the “dangers of modern life”—which, in this case, includes overindulging on the idea of chocolate being a safe vehicle for vodka. The delusional line between safe and satisfactory has certainly been blurred here, and for that, the court had enough fuel in its tank to drive home the verdict: this man knowingly consumed alcohol before getting behind the wheel.
So there you have it! A tale made for the books, filled with chocolate, a splash of denial, and a thrilling encounter with the law. As wild as it sounds, it certainly captures the imagination and serves as a stern reminder: if you feel like a cocktail, don’t forget that there are repercussions far beyond just your stomach’s acceptance at the wheel!
A driver in Hofheim am Taunus has lost his driver’s license after being pulled over by police, who discovered that he had an alarming blood alcohol concentration of 1.32 per mille. His unusual defense centered around a curious claim that he had consumed vodka-filled chocolates. In an intriguing legal twist, lawyer Christian Solmecke provided insight into how the matter concluded in the courtroom.
The District Court (AG) Frankfurt aM firmly convicted the driver of intentional drunk driving under § 316 of the Criminal Code (StGB) and not only revoked his driving license but also slapped him with a monetary fine (AG Frankfurt am Main, judgment dated August 29, 2024, ref. 907 Cs 515 Js 19563/24). The peculiar chocolate narrative presented in court led the judges to craft a notably charming verdict.
1.32 per mille from chocolates?
In January 2024, a routine police patrol in Hofheim am Taunus flagged a car for running a red light. Upon pulling the vehicle over and conducting a check, officers quickly assessed that the driver was unable to operate his car safely due to a dangerously high blood alcohol concentration of 1.32 per mille. During the subsequent trial, the man offered a bizarre explanation for his condition:
“I was in the sauna and did a lot of sauna infusions. I left late and didn’t feel well. I must have had too many infusions. I fell asleep in the car. A couple from a vehicle from Belgium knocked on the window. I said I didn’t feel well, I had hypoglycemia. They handed me a bag of chocolates. I ate those. After that I felt even worse. I drove off and realized I had to go to the bathroom. I took the exit…, wanted to go to McDonald’s. Then the police stopped me.”
When inquired about the type of chocolates he claimed to have consumed, the man recounted that these were dark chocolates, leading him to believe that they were filled with vodka. He asserted that he only sampled the chocolate and did not detect any alcohol flavor. Recalling a previous encounter with rum pralines, he noted that he could instantly taste the alcohol in those, but not in this case. “It burned a bit,” he mentioned, referring to his experience.
Upon further questioning about the chocolates, he revealed they were round and slightly smaller than a ping pong ball—he estimated having eaten at least 8 to 9 of them. This raised eyebrows in the courtroom, prompting doubts about the volume of alcohol necessary to reach his blood alcohol level.
Not very credible statements
The court ultimately regarded the man’s declarations as lacking credibility, prompting them to commission an expert report to better understand his claims. According to expert analysis, in order to reach a blood alcohol concentration of 1.32 per mille, the driver would have needed to consume approximately 0.2 to 0.3 liters of a high-proof alcoholic beverage (40 to 60 percent). This quantity equated to an impractical estimate of 132 pralines of the well-known Piedmont cherry chocolate “Mon Chéri.” In their meticulous assessment of the claim, the court highlighted:
“In addition, based on general life experience and taking into account the report obtained, the defendant’s admission is absolutely unrealistic. If one were to assume a number of 12 chocolates based on the defendant’s original estimate that he had eaten 8 to 9 chocolates, each of the chocolates would still have contained more than 2 cl of a 40% alcoholic beverage. In other words, each praline would have to contain at least one “shot” of high-proof alcohol.”
“It therefore seems hardly conceivable that such chocolate-covered shots could be purchased anywhere (not even in Belgium) and that they were accidentally offered to the defendant in the middle of the night in a parking lot by unknown people.
“What is completely untrue, however, is that the defendant claims not to have noticed the alcohol contained in the “chocolates”. If, as he says, the defendant has not drunk any alcohol since 2014, the court believes it is impossible that he would not have noticed any alcohol contained in the necessary amount of high-proof alcohol. The defendant’s assumption that it must have been vodka since he didn’t taste anything was clearly refuted by the experts’ explanation of the accompanying substance analysis.”
Consequently, the defendant’s attempt to “Presenting the dish from its best side was therefore not successful.” It was unequivocally established that the man knowingly consumed alcoholic beverages prior to operating his vehicle, thereby committing a criminal offense under the law for driving while intoxicated.
What legal consequences can a driver face for impaired driving, even with unusual defenses like chocolate-infused vodka?
Tes to around 132 chocolate pieces, assuming each contained a significant amount of alcohol. The court dismissed his defense as “absolutely unrealistic” and noted that even if he had found the chocolates somehow infused with vodka, it was highly unlikely they would have contained enough alcohol to impair his driving to such a degree.
the decision by the District Court was an emphatic reminder that the responsibility of drinking and driving is paramount, and creative excuses like chocolate-infused vodka will not hold up against concrete evidence. The driver was not only stripped of his license but also faced a fine as a consequence of his actions. As ludicrous as the situation was, it serves as a pivotal lesson: the law takes a serious stance on impaired driving, regardless of the fanciful narratives one might conjure up.
