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

D was a passenger in her own car. An acquaintance of D, identified only as 'Travis' was driving D's car because she was intoxicated and lacked a valid driver's license. As the car approached a lighted, traffic-signal-controlled intersection, a pin in the steering wheel's ignition lock unexpectedly popped out, causing the steering wheel to lock. Travis was somehow able to navigate the car off the highway to the roadside emergency lane. Travis told D that although he could not stay with her because there was a warrant out for his arrest, he would go get help. D was afraid of being struck by a passing car traveling at a high speed. At about 8:15 p.m., Officer Gifford saw D's car parked on the side of the highway and pulled up behind her. Officer Gifford explained to D that her car posed a hazard where it was parked. After D told Officer Gifford that she would use her cell phone to call someone for help, Officer Gifford drove away. D realized that her cell phone was not working. D claimed that she had five options: she could (1) walk to Western Auto, which had a phone she could use; (2) walk to a radio station over two miles away; (3) hitchhike; (4) stay in the car and wait for help; or (5) drive herself several miles to a clearing along the road and walk from there to a payphone. D concluded that driving herself to the clearing was the safest option. D put the pin back in the steering wheel ignition lock, started her car, drove on through the intersection, and continued southbound on the Egan Expressway. D stopped her car at a red light where Officer Gifford was parked. D proceeded on the highway through the intersection towards downtown Juneau. After briefly following D's car, Officer Gifford pulled D over, performed field sobriety tests, and arrested her for driving while intoxicated. D was charged with one count of felony driving while intoxicated and one count of driving while her license was suspended. The superior court ruled that D had presented 'some evidence' in support of the necessity defense and allowed the defense to go to the jury. The jury could not reach a verdict, and a mistrial was declared. Before her second trial, D again gave notice that she wished to raise the necessity defense. The superior court again ruled that she could. The superior court denied the P's motion for reconsideration, but stayed the second trial pending the outcome of P's petition for review to the court of appeals. The court of appeals denied the P's petition for review. P filed a petition for a hearing with this court.

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.