I have a case coming up where I believe the Defendant will try to make a necessity defense for DWI.

The facts are, he claims, (and I fully believe he is lying) that he was intoxicated and that he learned the mother of his daughter was at a party with people doing hard drugs with his daughter present, and that he got in his vehicle to go get his kid, then he wrecked the car, etc.

I work in a poor, rural county and I think if the jury believes this defendant, they will be very sympathetic to him. I don't know if I can get a ruling from the judge as a matter of law that the harm from a presently intoxicated person driving is not clearly outweighed by a kid being at a party where people may be doing hard drugs. Any suggestions would be appreciated, this is my second DWI case...

Because he couldn't have called the police to investigate the party instead? Uh, sure. Even most emergency situations can be handled without driving.

In a speeding appeal trial at the county level, a woman argued that her husband had called her at work to say their baby wasn't breathing, he'd called 911, and then he hung up on her because the ambulance had gotten to their house. She rushed (92 mph) to meet them at the hospital, and of course got caught. Officer testified that he seemed to recall that she'd appeared upset, possibly even crying, but didn't remember the story about the child. Husband testified to the same story. However, mother-defendant did NOT admit to going "as fast" as the officer said. She said she was speeding, but would never go that fast. I argued that, assuming her story was true, and we had no reason to disbelieve it, what mother WOULDN'T have driven 90+ mph to get to the hospital, and besides, how on earth could she have been so focused on the fact that she WASN'T going that fast? However, she was still a danger to others on the road, so I argued for a conviction and $50 fine (their baby is fine, now, btw). Jury assessed $92 fine - just goes to show that even in sympathetic cases the jury might not buy into the defense.

Take a look at DPS v. Moore, 175 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Gibbons v. State, 874 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.).

Janette A

Shafer v. State, 919 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.App.�Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref�d).
Rodriguez v. State, No. 08-03-00497-CR, 2005 WL 2313567 (Tex.App.�El Paso 2005, no pet.) (not
Moncivais v. State, No. 04-01-00568-CR, 2002 WL 1445200 (Tex.App.�San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication).
Torres v. State, No. 13-98-372-CR, 2000 WL 34251147 (Tex.App.�Corpus Christi 2000, no pet. (not designated for publication).
Bjornson v. State, No. 03-96-00182-CR, 1996 WL 627374 (Tex.App.�Austin 1996, no pet. (not designated for publication).

Wow - How ever did Richard come up with so many cases so quickly?

Perhaps you should write a book.... And then maybe have the contents of the book (perhaps even in a "searchable" format) on this web site...

And place the search button somewhere convenient (like the top of this screen), giving it a title that would cover the entire subject matter (e.g., DWI Resources).

If a guy did all that, I would say he should be named, Prosecutor of the Year.

No, no, no, Mr. Bradley. You are setting your sights far too low. Such achievements warrant nothing short of a Nobel Peace Prize. Given the new standards for that award, these things of which you speak would garner a unanimous vote.

I think they reserve awards like that for people that have at least 9,000,000.000.000 posts on this User Forum or get appointed to controversial committee's by Gov Perry.

Thanks for cases.