State v. Haley
64 Or. App. 209, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 3285, 667 P.2d 560 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish the affirmative defense of necessity for driving with a suspended license, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence both: 1) an injury or immediate threat of injury to human or animal life, which need not be life-threatening; and 2) that the urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for the defendant to drive, meaning no other reasonable alternatives were available.
Facts:
- The defendant's father was in a bar when he fell from a stool and broke his ankle.
- The defendant was present at the bar, but his driver's license was suspended and he was under the influence of intoxicants.
- Other sober and licensed individuals were present at the bar.
- Emergency services, such as an ambulance, were available in the vicinity.
- The defendant did not attempt to call an ambulance or ask any other individuals for assistance.
- The defendant chose to drive his father to the hospital himself.
- A police officer stopped the defendant's car while he was driving.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged in an Oregon trial court with driving while suspended and driving under the influence of intoxicants.
- At trial, Defendant stipulated to the offenses but raised the affirmative defense of necessity.
- The State filed a motion to withdraw the necessity defense from the jury's consideration.
- The trial court granted the State's motion.
- The defendant was convicted on the charges.
- Defendant, as the appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, arguing the trial court erred in withdrawing his defense.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
To establish the affirmative defense of necessity under ORS 487.560(2)(a) for driving with a suspended license, must a defendant prove that the 'urgency of the circumstances' made it necessary for them to drive, even if the underlying injury was not life-threatening?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, P. J.
Yes. To establish the affirmative defense of necessity for driving with a suspended license, a defendant must prove both an injury and that the urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for the defendant to drive. The court reasoned that the defense statute, ORS 487.560(2)(a), contains two distinct elements. The first element, 'injury or threat of injury to human or animal life,' does not require the injury to be life-threatening; interpreting it otherwise could lead to unreasonably harsh results. The court distinguished this from the defense being used for property damage. However, the second element requires the defendant to prove that the 'urgency of the circumstances' compelled them to drive. Here, the defendant failed to meet this burden because he offered no evidence explaining his failure to pursue reasonable alternatives, such as calling an ambulance or asking other sober patrons for help. Because the defendant did not prove it was necessary for him to drive, he failed to establish the second element of the defense, and the trial court was justified in withdrawing it from the jury.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the two-part test for the necessity defense under Oregon's driving-while-suspended statute. By rejecting a 'life-threatening' injury requirement, the court adopts a more defendant-friendly interpretation of the first prong. However, it simultaneously raises the bar for the second prong, 'urgency of the circumstances,' by requiring a defendant to demonstrate that they exhausted or considered other reasonable, lawful alternatives. This precedent instructs lower courts to scrutinize not just the emergency itself, but whether the defendant's illegal act was truly the only viable option available at the time.
