State v. Romano
809 A.2d 158 (2002)
Nature Of The Case
This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.
Facts
Officer Stine was on routine patrol when he saw D's vehicle traveling 'without its headlights on.' Officer Stine stopped the vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, Officer Stine saw D with 'his face . . . covered in blood and . . . bleeding profusely from [his] nose . . . . He was physically shaken . . . [and] frightened.' Officer Stine summoned an ambulance. D told Officer Stine he was 'scared' and had been 'jumped by some individuals' in the parking lot of Bucco's Restaurant (Bucco's). D was pleased to see Officer Stine and admitted that 'he needed help.' Officer Stine had first observed D's vehicle when it was approximately 350 yards from Bucco's parking lot with the headlights off, but not because D was speeding or driving erratically. The officer also confirmed that D was 'full of blood' when he first saw him and that 'it was on his shirt, on his jeans, you know, it was all over his hands also.' Officer Stine also testified that there was blood on the '[s]teering wheel.' 'There was a lot of blood.' Patrol cars were dispatched, but no suspects were found. D was taken to the hospital. D was treated for a broken nose, lacerations, bruises, and cuts. Due to the smell of alcohol on D's breath, Officer Stine requested that blood be drawn to determine D's blood alcohol content. D had a blood alcohol level of .16. D testified that at about 1:45 a.m., he went into the bathroom at Bucco's and was approached by three men who 'smacked [him around]' and claimed he knew someone who 'owed them money.' D left the bathroom and went outside to the parking lot to await his girlfriend's return from seeing Bucco, Jr's new apartment. While in the parking lot, d was struck from behind by two men, who pulled him on top of a car while a third man proceeded to beat him in the face. D testified that the beating on the car felt like forever, but may have been only four or five minutes long. D fell off the car to the ground, and his attackers continued to 'to kick [him], punch [him], pull [his] hair, kicking [him] under the car.' Defendant testified that he was struck all over, and even his ring was bent. 'They were stepping on [him].' D somehow managed to break free and ran to his car. D managed to get into his car and lock the door from the inside. The attackers jumped onto the hood of his car, shook and kicked the car and screamed 'come out here, we're going to get you, you're dead after this, you'll see what's going to happen. . . .' D got scared and started the car and had to get out of there' because the assailants were threatening 'to kill [him].' As he drove out of the parking lot, Dt saw a police cruiser in front of him. D believed that Officer Stine saved his life. D did not have a cell phone or any other means of seeking assistance from his car. D drove out of Bucco's parking lot about '100 to 150 feet' before being pulled over by Officer Stine. D admitted driving without his headlights on, but stated '[he] was confused . . . [he] couldn't describe it. You know it was fear for [his] life basically and shaken up and [he] wasn't concentrating on the headlight.' D further testified that he knew he was seriously injured upon entering his vehicle because '[i]t felt like water on face and it was blood and it was all over [him], . . . from head to shoes, covered in blood.' A blood-soaked sweater and a pair of pants were admitted into evidence and identified as the garments D was wearing at the time of the beating. D did not know his attackers, but he believed their threats to kill were serious because they just wouldn't stop hitting and screaming and punching, kicking. D was charged with DWI, failure to wear a seatbelt, and failure to use headlights. D was convicted of DWI and failure to use headlights. He was acquitted of failure to wear a seatbelt. D filed a de novo appeal and reasserted the defense of necessity. The judge concluded that D asserted the common-law defense of duress. In rejecting this defense because no perpetrators were found, no disturbances were called in to the police, no witnesses were interviewed, and no charges were filed for assault. The judge stated that D did not show that he had no options in regard to the necessity of driving to protect himself from his assailants. Could he have gone into a nearby establishment or pay phone to call for help? Could he have driven to a safe place in the parking lot and waited until he could obtain help? The judge held that the burden of proof was on D to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was coerced into driving by his attackers. D failed in his proof. D was found guilty of DWI. D appealed. P asserts that D is not entitled to the defense of necessity, or duress, because of the strong public policy against DWI and because DWI is a per se offense when a driver's blood alcohol level is .10 or above.
Issues
The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.
Holding & Decision
The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.
Legal Analysis
Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.
© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner