Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that Lina Garrison was not entitled to present a necessity defense to the jury in her retrial for felony driving while intoxicated and driving while her license was suspended. The court concluded that she presented no evidence permitting a reasonable person to find that driving intoxicated was safer than the alternatives available to her. The court vacated the superior court order allowing submission of the necessity defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Garrison presented some evidence sufficient to entitle her to a jury instruction on the necessity defense.
- Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Garrison, could permit a reasonable juror to find that the harm avoided by driving intoxicated was not disproportionate to the harm caused or risked by that conduct.
Holdings
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on necessity only if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, would permit a reasonable juror to find in the defendant's favor on every element of the defense.
- To place the necessity defense in issue, a defendant must present some evidence that the charged offense was committed to prevent a significant evil, that there was no adequate alternative, and that the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided; for a continuing offense, the defendant must also present some evidence that the violation stopped when the necessity ended.
- Garrison did not present some evidence that the harms she sought to avoid were objectively greater than the reasonably foreseeable dangers created by driving intoxicated for an extended distance on a busy four-lane highway.
Key quotations
“Because Garrison produced no evidence that would permit a reasonable person to find that driving intoxicated was safer than anything else she could have done, she is not entitled to present the necessity defense to the jury as a matter of law.” (171 P.3d at 98)
Factual background
Garrison was intoxicated and stranded in her car on the side of a busy, four-lane highway after the driver, Travis, left to seek help. She feared being struck by passing vehicles, being harmed by a stranger, or suffering an allergic reaction to the cold, and believed driving several miles to a clearing was her safest option. After a police officer offered to call a tow truck and then left, Garrison discovered that her cell phone did not work, drove her car while intoxicated through Juneau, and was arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Procedural history
Garrison was charged with felony driving while intoxicated and driving while her license was suspended. The superior court allowed her to present a necessity defense at her first trial, which ended in a hung jury and mistrial. Before the second trial, the superior court again ruled that she could submit the necessity defense to the jury and denied the State's motion to reconsider. The court of appeals denied the State's petition for review, but the Alaska Supreme Court granted the State's petition and vacated the superior court's order.