People v. Slack
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 499, 210 Cal.App.3d 937, 258 Cal. Rptr. 702 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, such as necessity, unless their proffered evidence is legally sufficient to establish every element of that defense. A trial court may refuse such an instruction as a matter of law if the evidence, even when accepted as true, could not lead a reasonable jury to find the defense applicable.
Facts:
- Robert Frederick Slack, while intoxicated at a restaurant in Tijuana, Mexico, attempted to pay with a credit card issued in his mother's name.
- The restaurant manager challenged the card's validity and, after a discussion, asked Slack and his companion to step outside.
- Outside, two large men joined the group, and Slack overheard one say, "We will take care of it," which Slack interpreted as a threat of physical harm.
- When the manager indicated he was going to call the police, Slack ran to his car and began driving away at high speed.
- The two large men initially followed Slack in a separate car but disappeared when Tijuana police took up the chase with lights and sirens activated.
- Fearing an assault by the Tijuana police based on a single prior negative encounter, Slack continued to flee at high speed while intoxicated, driving all the way to the United States border.
- At the U.S. port of entry, Slack was detained by customs officials for drunk driving.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Frederick Slack was prosecuted in municipal court for driving under the influence.
- At trial, Slack made an offer of proof to support a jury instruction on the defense of necessity.
- The trial court found the offer of proof legally insufficient and refused to give the instruction.
- A jury subsequently convicted Slack.
- Slack (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Department of the San Diego Superior Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Department reversed the conviction, finding the trial court erred in refusing the instruction.
- The Appellate Department then certified the case to the California Court of Appeal to resolve a perceived conflict in case law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity when their proffered evidence, even if accepted as true, fails to legally establish all required elements of the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Work, J.
No. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity where the evidence proffered, even if fully accepted as true, does not legally satisfy all the elements of the defense. The court distinguishes between a judge's duty not to weigh witness credibility, which is for the jury, and the judge's duty to determine the legal sufficiency of a defense, which is a matter of law. Applying the six-part test for necessity from People v. Pena, the court found Slack's offer of proof failed as a matter of law. Specifically, the harm of a high-speed chase by an intoxicated driver was disproportionate to the speculative harm Slack sought to avoid. Furthermore, Slack had a reasonable legal alternative—pulling over for the police—once the two men were no longer following him. Finally, Slack substantially contributed to the emergency through his voluntary intoxication and his handling of the credit card dispute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the trial judge's role as a gatekeeper in determining whether an affirmative defense can be presented to a jury. It establishes a clear distinction between factual sufficiency (credibility of evidence, which is for the jury) and legal sufficiency (whether the evidence, if true, meets the legal standard, which is for the court). The decision prevents defendants from using the necessity defense in drunk driving cases based on speculative or subjectively unreasonable fears, reinforcing that the potential harm to the public from an intoxicated driver is rarely outweighed by a private threat to the driver. This holding limits the availability of the necessity defense in DUI cases to situations with more direct, immediate, and objectively verifiable threats.
