What is the effect of dry ice on a driver's defense in a motor vehicle accident case?

relevant to his defense. As discussed above, petitioner's defense was that he was involuntarily intoxicated as a result of being exposed to dry ice. Based on this exposure to dry ice, petitioner's defense was that he did not knowingly make the dangerous pass which led to the collision. Based on this defense, petitioner's knowledge of whether the line was striped or solid when he began his lane change was not relevant to his defense. Therefore, petitioner's counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue an inconsistent defense that was contrary to petitioner's testimony. See Turk v. White, 116 F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (9th Cir. 1997) (concluding that once counsel reasonably selects a defense, failing to present an alternative and inconsistent defense is not ineffective assistance of counsel). On this ground, petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be denied.