The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A state trooper pulled D over for driving with his headlights off. D's mother, Sharon Allen, was a passenger in the car. The trooper determined that D's driver's license was suspended, and so he arrested D for driving with a suspended license. At the time, D was on bail release from another criminal charge. D's attorney notified the State (P) that he intended to assert the affirmative defense of necessity. D's offer of proof presented the following evidence: D's mother had initially been driving the car, but she had to pull over because she began to suffer fatigue and double vision. D knew that he was not supposed to drive, but he believed that his mother needed medical attention, so (with his mother now in the passenger seat) D started driving to Big John's Liquors, approximately one-half mile down the road, where there was a telephone. P was stopped by a state trooper. The defense attorney called D's mother to the stand (outside the presence of the jury) in support of the proposed necessity defense. Mrs. Allen stated that she was suffering from fatigue and double vision at the time, recurring symptoms that stemmed from her being doused with gasoline three years earlier. She stated that D had not previously seen her in this condition, and he was scared about her health. She did not ask the trooper for help in obtaining medical assistance, nor did she go to a hospital or call a doctor later that night. She explained there was nothing to be done except wait for the problems to subside. She testified that she sometimes sleeps for a couple of hours until her symptoms go away. She conceded that, during the time her son was driving to Big John's, they must have passed Good Time Charlie's, a strip club. She conceded that they did not stop at the strip club. She explained that the only telephone she knew about was at Big John's, that she was not a 'bar person', and that she 'wouldn't have considered going in [Good Time Charlie's].' D’s attorney also offered to prove that D believed that his mother needed medical attention, that he wanted to transport her to Big John's because that was the nearest place he knew of where there was a telephone, and that D believed there was no adequate alternative to his driving the car to Big John's. The trial judge suggested that D might have walked the half-mile to Big John's. The prosecutor offered to prove that D had driven for more than half a mile, and that he and his mother had passed up many opportunities to stop and use a telephone. The Magistrate refused to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity because D had an adequate, reasonable alternative to breaking the law. P was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.