The Necessity Defense | Minnesota DUI Lawyer
In Minnesota, the necessity defense, sometimes called the defense of necessity, generally applies in situations where a person’s crime is excused because they are facing an emergency situation and the commission of the particular crime is necessary to prevent some greater harm from occurring. The defense of necessity applies to Minnesota DWI crimes, but also to other crimes, such as trespass, burglary, theft, and others. However, the fact that a person is faced with an emergency and commits a crime with the apparent motive to avoid the emergency is not definitive. The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that the necessity defense applies only “in emergency situations where the peril is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no alternative but the conduct in question.” In order to aid juries and district courts in assessing whether a necessity defense should apply to a given case, the appellate courts have fashioned a three-part test that a defendant must satisfy.
The Three-Part Test for the Necessity Defense in Minnesota
To prove the existence of a valid defense, a defendant must show:
(1) she had no legal alternative to breaking the law, (2) the harm to be prevented was imminent, and (3) a direct, causaal connection existed between breaking the law and preventing the harm.
To satisfy the above test, Minnesota courts require a defendant to make what is called a “prima facie” showing that valid grounds for the defense exist. This means that a defendant cannot simply make a legal argument that they committed a crime out of necessity, but must set forth specific facts and circumstances that would warrant a judge in giving the necessity defense instruction to the jury. If a defendant fails to make this showing, the defense will not be considered.
An Example from the Appellate Courts
It may come as a surprise, but the defense applies less frequently than one may think. If judging from the opinions from the appellate courts offers any clue, it is that the necessity defense is harder to obtain at trial than might be expected.
State v. Atha
In State v. Atha, the defendant (Atha) and her fiancé went to a bar in St. Cloud with Atha’s cousin, her cousin’s husband, and some of her cousin’s friends. At the bar, the defendant discovered that some of her money had disappeared from the table. She accused one of her cousin’s friends of taking the money, and the accused person denied taking the money. The defendant and her fiancé left the bar and returned to her cousin’s residence, where they planned to spend the night. The remainder of the group returned to the cousin’s residence approximately one hour later. A confrontation ensued after the defendant’s cousin’s husband expressed anger that the defendant had accused the cousin’s friend of theft. The defendant testified that she left the residence after her cousin’s husband threw a beer bottle at her. She then drove to a gas station less than one block away to call 911. After calling 911, the defendant drove back to her cousin’s residence to pick up her fiancé and children, whom she initially had left behind. The defendant testified that when she returned to the residence, one of the cousin’s friends attempted to attack her fiancé. As the defendant attempted to drive away with her fiancé and children, one of the men jumped in front of the van and then attempted to chase it on foot. To evade the man, she drove away but later made a U-turn to return to the gas station. A Stearns County sheriff’s deputy saw the defendant make the U-turn and drive onto a curb. The deputy stopped the defendant as she arrived at the gas station again. St. Cloud police officers also were at the gas station because they had been dispatched there after the defendant called 911. The officers suspected that the defendant was intoxicated because they noted that her speech was slurred and that her breath smelled of alcohol. The defendant also failed a series of field sobriety tests, and a breath test revealed that she had an alcohol concentration of .11.
At her trial for DWI crimes, the defendant’s request for a necessity defense instruction was denied by the trial court judge on the ground that she had not established a prima facie showing of necessity. In denying the request, the trial court judge made the following findings:
The defense is really, by nature, a very exceptional defense that requires an extraordinary set of circumstances; particularly, you know, a clear choice between the lesser of two evils, and it requires that the harm or the peril be instant and overwhelming and leave no alternative but the conduct in question. I think the law is also clear that the defense of necessity is not available if the choice of action is necessitated by the defendant’s own recklessness or negligence, and the harm has to be imminent….
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of providing the necessity defense instruction at the defendant’s trial. In particular, the court of appeals wrote:
The district court properly analyzed Atha’s request for an instruction on necessity. First, Atha admitted on cross-examination that she could have avoided a confrontation with her cousin’s friends by going to sleep rather than remaining awake. Second, the gas station is less than one block from the cousin’s residence. Atha could have walked or run to the gas station to place a telephone call to the police in nearly the same time as was required to drive there. Third, Atha’s own testimony tended to diminish the risk of injury to her fiancé and children. She said, ‘I didn’t think they would directly go do something to my kids, but I figured [my fiancé] was in harm….’ Fourth, she admitted that ‘the best way to go about it’ would have been to wait at the gas station for the police to arrive and escort her back to the residence to get her children. Her own testimony precludes her from proving that the peril [was] instant, overwhelming, and leaves no alternative but the conduct in question.
As can be seen, the specific facts of a case matter a whole lot. In the Atha case, it appears that the courts believed that the defendant’s claim of a true emergency was somewhat tenuous, and moreover, that she had options to avoid any such emergency by means other than driving. Accordingly, the necessity defense was not appropriate. It is important to keep in mind that each case is unique. The Atha case serves as but one example in this area of Minnesota law.
Beyond the Criminal Case
In Minnesota, when a person is arrested for violating Minnesota’s DWI laws and provides a sample of their blood, breath, or urine, and that sample reveals an alcohol concentration of .08 or more, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety will revoke the person’s driving privileges. This revocation occurs regardless of whether the person is charged with a crime or not. This action against a person’s license is taken pursuant to Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law, which we wrote about in more detail here.
Under Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law, a person who has had their driving privileges revoked can challenge the revocation by filing a petition for judicial review in the district court where the person was arrested. This is often referred to as an “Implied Consent” case by Minnesota DUI lawyers. An Implied Consent case consists of a single hearing, where the aggrieved party can challenge their driver’s license revocation before a district court judge. The challenges that a person can bring are set by statute, and as of 2015, these challenges include the defense of necessity. In an Implied Consent case, if a person can prove at a hearing the defense of necessity, their driver’s license revocation will be rescinded by the district court judge.
A DUI Lawyer from our Office Can Help if You’re Facing Minnesota DWI or DUI charges
Driving while impaired crimes are defendable. Raising a necessity defense requires tact, focus, and hard work in order to demonstrate the facts necessary to secure a successful outcome. Proving a necessity defense can be an uphill battle. Our attorneys have a wealth of experience in defending DWI cases across Minnesota. We know how to effectively handle a case from start to finish, and this includes raising all appropriate defenses, litigating motions, conducting hearings, and going to trial, when necessary. Our firm provides free consultations so you can determine whether a DWI lawyer from our office is the right fit for your case. You can reach us at 612-767-9643, or by filling out the form below.