Summary
holding that the defense of duress/necessity is available to a defendant charged with DUI
Summary of this case from Brooks v. StateOpinion
Decided December 27, 1983
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
holding that the defense of duress/necessity is available to a defendant charged with DUI
Summary of this case from Brooks v. StateDecided December 27, 1983
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
holding that the defense of duress/necessity is available to a defendant charged with DUI
Summary of this case from Brooks v. Statereversing trial court's refusal to give instruction on defense of necessity to a defendant charged with driving under the influence where he did so to prevent imminent harm to a third party
Summary of this case from Toops v. Statedealing with case of drunken driving
Summary of this case from Stodghill v. StateIn People v. Pena (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14 [197 Cal.Rptr. 264], the court discussed the defense of necessity as it applied outside a prison escape setting.
Summary of this case from People v. GarzianoIn Pena, the defendant contended he followed a deputy sheriff who had removed his 20-year-old scantily-clad girlfriend from his car in the nighttime after finding the two sleeping at the side of the road, because the deputy's activities during a "weapons search" of the girl while closely examining her "see through" teddy pajamas, led him to fear she might be in danger.
Summary of this case from People v. SlackFull title:PEOPLE v. PENA (BERNARDO)
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Dec 27, 1983
(1a) Petitioners contend that their offer of proof met all the requirements for the defense of necessity and…
Toops v. StateIn California for example there is a six-part test: (1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to…