Necessity Defense to Michigan Drunk Driving – I had no choice but to drive drunk.

By Attorney James Czarnecki|Czarnecki & Taylor PLLC|NOV 4, 2022

Necessity defense to drunk driving.
Necessity defense to drunk driving.

When can you use the necessity defense to a Michigan OWI charge?

In most Michigan OWI cases, the defense will argue that reasonable doubt exists on one of the elements of the offense. Other times lawyers will argue that the police did not have a reason to stop you. But, what if there is a defense where you admit you drove drunk but still should not be found guilty of a Michigan OWI? This would be a defense based on necessity. Czarnecki & Taylor has used the of necessity in multiple drunk driving cases.

What is the necessity defense?

The necessity defense is an affirmative defense. But, what is an affirmative defense? Usually, the burden in a criminal case is on the prosecutor. Specifically, the prosecutor must prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, The defendant must prove an affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces evidence, which, if found to be credible, will negate criminal liability or civil liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

www.law.cornell.edu

The burden is on the defendant to show the jury that they acted out of necessity. While the defendant is responsible for establishing the defense, the defendant does not have to prove “necessity” beyond a reasonable doubt.

Necessity involves choosing between harmful alternatives that could not be avoided, which arose from the circumstances. The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency to prevent more significant harm from happening.

In such cases, our legal system typically excuses the individual’s criminal act because it was justified or finds that no criminal act has occurred. Learn more about other ways to get a drunk driving dismissed.

Elements of the necessity defense.

1. You acted out of necessity, meaning there was no other reasonable legal alternative available to address the emergency. For example, if you got behind the wheel while intoxicated because you needed to get to a hospital because of a medical emergency, this would likely be considered a valid use of the necessity defense.

2. Your conduct had to be proportionate to the threat at hand. In other words, your actions needed to be reasonable in response to the emergency you encountered. For example, if you got behind the wheel and drove recklessly or dangerously in an attempt to get to a hospital, this may not be considered a valid use of the necessity defense.

3. You must have reasonably believed that your conduct was necessary to address the emergency. This means that even if others might not agree with your assessment of the situation, as long as you genuinely believed that your actions were necessary and reasonable under the circumstances, this may be considered a valid use of the necessity defense.

4. Your actions must not have contributed to the emergency.

Several situations could give rise to a necessity defense, but the most common would be fleeing a dangerous situation or medical emergency. Only if the requirements described above are met will the defense of necessity be available to a defendant.

Necessity defense to Michigan drunk driving.

Frequently asked questions to Macomb County drunk driving cases.

Again, the necessity defense is based on the idea that a person should not be held criminally liable for their actions if they were compelled to act in a certain way by outside forces or circumstances. To establish this defense, the defendant must typically show that they reasonably believed that they had no other option but to drive while intoxicated and that their actions served an important purpose, such as preventing harm to others or mitigating some other threat.

As described earlier, several factors are considered when determining whether a defendant can successfully raise an affirmative defense of necessity in these cases. One important consideration is whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable.

For example, a defendant who was aware of alternative options but chose to drive while intoxicated is unlikely to be able to claim the defense successfully. Additionally, the purpose for which the defendant drove must also be considered in determining whether their belief was reasonable.

Another important consideration when raising an affirmative defense of necessity is whether there were any other means by which the defendant could have avoided driving while intoxicated. For example, if an ambulance was readily available and the defendant chose to drive a car, they are unlikely to raise the defense successfully. Similarly, it must be determined that the actions taken by the defendant were effective in achieving their intended ends and mitigated any threat posed by their intoxicated state.

In one example, our office used the necessity defense to defend our client from a drunk driving offense. Ultimately, the prosecutor dismissed the charges. However, the prosecutor’s office initially did not want to do so. So, we set the case for trial. While awaiting trial during, our office wrote a legal memo to the prosecutor’s office arguing that the necessity defense was applicable. They agreed. Not only were the charges dismissed, but we avoided a trial.

Before coming to our office, other attorneys had told our client that nothing could be done about the case. We knew better.

Our client had been at home with her husband, enjoying drinks and dinner. However, the situation turned dangerous for our client as her abusive husband beat and kicked her in the head.

A neighbor heard the altercation and called the police. Our client ran out of her home to get inside her car. At first, she didn’t intend to drive away. However, her husband ran out after her and tried to punch the car window out. She only drove away because her husband would not stop attacking the vehicle.

By leaving the scene, she escaped significant bodily injury. Hospital records indicated that she received several bruises and a concussion.

When she fled her home, she attempted to drive to the nearby 7-11 to call the police. As the police approached the house, they spotted our client’s car and stopped it.

The police asked her if she had been drinking. She told them she had a few drinks. She also told them that she had been beaten by her husband and had to drive away. The police still arrested her for drunk driving, and the prosecutor filed a case against her for OWI.

We won this case for our client because “necessity” dictated that she had to drive despite being over the legal limit. She had no choice but to drive to avoid further injury. The emergency dictated she had to escape the beating.
Because the defense of necessity is a justification for a criminal act, it is essential that the defendant had no other realistic options available to her at the time she committed the criminal act. This does not mean that no alternative whatsoever must exist. Generally, the individual will always have the option to let the greater harm occur, such as a beating in this case, and refrain from acting criminally by driving while legally intoxicated. Thankfully, courts have determined that this is not a realistic option.

The facts of this case showed that our client didn’t have any options other than to drive away. She left home for her safety – out of necessity. She did not want to walk down the street as her husband had already beaten her and would continue to do so. She had looked for a place of safety, and that was her vehicle. Only when he came outside and attacked the car did she drive away.

There were no good alternatives that day except for the critical one – escape her husband by driving. According to Michigan case law, an affirmative defense is not a defense that is directed at an element of the crime. Rather it is one “`that admits the doing of the act charged, but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate it.” People v. Lemons, 454 Mich. 234, 246 n. 15, 562 N.W.2d 447 (1997), quoting 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 183, p. 338; see also People Pegenau, 447 Mich. 278,
319, 523 N.W.2d 325 (1994).

Our client was presented with a clear choice of two evils: she either had to leave the domestic dispute and commit an OWI or risk an even worse assault at her husband’s hands.

Looking at the general requirements of the necessity defense, the facts of this case satisfied every element. First, she reasonably believed that there was an actual and specific threat that required immediate action – based on medical reports, there is no doubt that our client had been assaulted by her husband the day she drove away from the house. Second, she had no realistic alternative to completing the criminal act – our client went to her car for safety. She only left the scene because her husband attacked the vehicle.

Third, the harm caused by the criminal act must not be greater than the harm avoided – clearly, the act of driving “drunk” from the scene of an assault is not worse than our client’s beating. There was no evidence of impaired driving and there was no accident. Based on those facts, the harm avoided exceeded the OWI offense because the evidence showed that our client was the victim of a beating resulting in bruises, swelling, and a concussion.

Lastly, our client had a reasonable belief that she had no legal alternative and she was preventing a greater harm. Also, she did not create the situation she avoided. There is no doubt that an ordinary person would have thought her actions were reasonable. That is how we got the case dismissed. 

Why you need a lawyer to present the necessity defense to Michigan drunk driving.

There are many reasons it is essential for a lawyer to present the necessity defense in drunk driving cases. First and foremost, it is important for defendants to understand that the necessity defense does not necessarily mean that they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Instead, it simply means that there were extenuating circumstances or other factors that led them to make the decision to drive drunk. When using the necessity defense in a drunk driving case you are essentially accepting the fact you operated a car while intoxicated. So, the defense can be risky if not done correctly.

Guide to Macomb County drunk driving cases.

Another reason a lawyer is important when presenting a necessity defense is because this type of defense requires highly specialized knowledge about criminal law and OWI laws in particular. A good lawyer will have extensive experience working on these types of cases, and will be able to navigate the complex legal landscape in order to help their clients get the best possible outcome.

In conclusion, if you are facing drunk driving charges, it is crucial that you work with a skilled lawyer who can help you look at all of your defenses. With the right legal representation, you may be able to successfully avoid harsh penalties or even have your charges dismissed altogether. Read more on how we win Michigan drunk driving cases.

Contact Czarnecki & Taylor

Czarnecki & Taylor distinguishes itself from other firms in many ways. Perhaps the most important way is our commitment to providing personalized, individualized care and attention to each of our clients’ cases. We devote the time and attention necessary to ensuring that each of our clients’ cases is properly prepared and presented.

In addition to providing this personalized service, we also have a solid track record of achieving successful outcomes for clients facing a wide range of criminal charges. We have a team of highly skilled and experienced lawyers who have extensive knowledge and experience.

Our lawyers understand the complexities of the legal system and can provide effective representation to clients facing criminal charges. We offer personalized service to each client, ensuring that we met their needs and goals. Whether you need aggressive defense at trial or guidance through a plea deal, we can help. So if you’re looking for an effective and reliable criminal defense law firm, look no further than ours. Contact us today to learn more.

This article is based on our experience handling Michigan drunk driving cases in the tri-county area including but not limited to the following courts:

If you are charged with a Michigan OWI, Czarnecki & Taylor are here to help. We are available 24/7 at (586) 718-2345 for a free initial consultation.

Schedule a free consultation.

Discuss your case and facts to learn information about your situation.

Get a plan designed personally for your case.

Get a thorough and detailed plan of action with the purpose of getting the best outcome on your case.

Let your defense begin now.

Work with lawyers who are dedicated to your defense. We understand that being charged with a crime can be stressful and overwhelming. We will be by your side every step of the way providing guidance and support.

Contact czarnecki & taylor pllc