Contact a local lawyer now for a FREE consultation!  

(800)384-5297

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT FREDERICK SLACK, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One
May 22, 1989

The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. In camera, defendant alleged he was dining with an acquaintance in Tijuana and had a misunderstanding with the restaurant manager over the dinner check and that, although he had been drinking, it was necessary that he drive to escape a potential assault. Mexican police pursued defendant all the way to the United States border entry point, where he was detained by United States Customs Service officials for drunken driving. Defendant alleged he eluded the police because he had once been assaulted by a Tijuana policeman. The municipal court found defendant’s offer of proof legally insufficient to sustain an instruction on the defense of necessity.  On being convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating beverages ( Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) and (b)) and admitted a previous conviction for the same charge, he successfully appealed to the Appellate Department of the San Diego Superior Court. That appellate body found the municipal court erred in determining Slack’s offer of proof was insufficient to justify instructing the jurors on the defense of necessity. The appellate department certified the matter to this court to resolve what it perceived to be as a conflict between two published decisions of this division, People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 470 [249 Cal.Rptr. 897] and People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952 [179 Cal.Rptr. 276].

Issues:

Whether there is any conflict between the decisions People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 470 [249 Cal.Rptr. 897] and People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952 [179 Cal.Rptr. 276]?

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on the necessity defense?

Discussion:

This court held that Comparing Patrick and Lemus leaves an unalterable conclusion that there is no conflict between them on any issue relevant to this appeal. That Slack elected to satisfy his foundational burden through an offer of proof, rather than on the witness stand in his case in chief, is irrelevant. Presumably, this election prevented the jurors from hearing him admit he was intoxicated while driving, an admission extricably intertwined with the factual predicate he needed to lay to present a necessity defense. He undoubtedly surmised, correctly it turns out, after he finished testifying and exposing his guilt to the jurors the trial court would not give the necessity instruction. However, had he testified, the standard of review on appeal as to the correctness of the trial court’s decision would have been exactly the same, that is whether there is evidence deserving of consideration from which reasonable jurors could conclude the Pena elements have been satisfied. The court held that although it recognized that accuracy of perception depends on the eyes of the beholder there was no legal inconsistencies or conflicts between Lemus and Patrick.

This court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on the necessity defense.Slack was detained by officials of the United States Customs for drunk driving upon reaching the border. His entry while driving intoxicated placed the persons at this normally congested checkpoint and the adjacent property in danger. Even assuming Slack would have testified that he intended to drive only to the safety of the border and no further, an assertion significantly missing from his offer of proof, the defendant has not shown a good faith belief that it was necessary for him to continue driving while intoxicated once he realized he was no longer being pursued by the participants in the restaurant exchange, but was being requested by the Tijuana police to pull over. Whatever the contacts consisted of, with the exception of the occasion of the alleged assault, he does not characterize them as benign or otherwise. Thus, as expressed in the settled statement, this testimony has no evidentiary weight. Further, that he was assaulted by a Tijuana policeman on one occasion, the circumstances and gravity of which are not presented, gives no support for a jury finding that in this case, under these circumstances where Slack was admittedly driving drunkenly through the streets of Tijuana, he could have had a good faith belief it was necessary to do so because the threat of physical assault from law enforcement officials significantly outweighed the threat of public mayhem and property destruction to which he exposed those in his wake. This court is satisfied, as the trial court must have been, that as a matter of law even if the jurors accepted Slack’s entire offer of proof as true, it would not establish the elements of a necessity defense because the risk of vehicular destruction is so great that even the risk of physical assault to the intoxicated driver pales in comparison. Also, Slack does not show why he had no adequate reasonable alternative to driving drunk, nor that his own acts did not contribute to the “emergency” he perceived. His offer of proof contains no allegation he lacked sufficient cash to pay the bill or even that he asked the restaurant manager to verify his authorization to use the credit card. Nor does he suggest his professional dinner companion was not sufficiently affluent to “pick up the tab” or to temporarily loan Slack the money to pay the bill. Most significantly, except for his voluntary inebriation, the risk of harm from Slack’s conduct would have been minimized. This court held that as in Patrick, Slack’s evidentiary predicate is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the elements of a necessity defense even if accepted as true by the trier of fact.

Conclusion:

This court affirmed the municipal court’s order, and finding that defendant’s offer of proof was insufficient for justifying a jury instruction on the defense of necessity

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.

Los Angeles DUI defense attorneys are faced with a new challenge in defending drunk driving due to new attempts by California police authorities to fight DUI.  Police Departments throughout California are attempting to use social media and online services to make those who get arrested for DUI embarrassed.  How do they propose doing it? Criminal Attorneys are informed that their client’s name and photo may be placed on social media sites such as facebook, myspace and LinkedIn.

Fighting DUI cases in California has become increasingly difficult for Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys.  This is just another reason why DUI lawyers must take every drunk driving arrest, especially those that involve bodily injury more seriously.

Privacy advocates must work in conjunction with criminal attorneys to curb the overly enthusiastic efforts of Los Angeles Police Department to fight DUI by causing unnecessary shame and embarrassment, when other means of fighting DUI is readily available.  Police Department defends its proposed action of placing mug shot of those who get arrested more than once for driving under the influence of alcohol on sites such as Facebook and Myspace, by arguing that such action “saves lives”.  It is arguable, however, how causing shame and embarrassment by exposing such individuals to pubic view will save lives. To what extent could law enforcement authorities invade one’s privacy?  Is this the beginning of the creation of a database of DUI convictions with their private information and photos available for everyone to see?

Are the authorities attempting to fight DUI cases by making DUI an equivalent of sexual predators whose name are readily available online?  To propose that the photograph of everyone who gets arrested for Drunk Driving must be immediately place on social media sites clearly violates the constitutional rights of our private citizens.  Criminal Defense Attorneys have long fought for our citizen’s rights to privacy and have played a major role in creating a balance between privacy rights of our citizens and the government’s right to protect the safety of the public.  In the context of California Drunk Driving Laws, and for all intents and purposes in the whole United States, there should not be an assumption that everyone who gets arrested for DUI will in fact be convicted of the crime.  Also, many times a conviction is the result of plea negotiations between criminal attorneys and prosecutors in DUI courts, where there is not convincing evidence of the arrestee’s guilt.

To cause such embarrassment to DUI arrestees by exposing them to ridicule and shame on social medial sites California Law Enforcement Authorities are clearly invading our citizen’s privacy rights, their right to be secure in their property and belongings, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

The presumption of innocence does not change for repeat DUI offenders.  There is no question that drunk drivers in California are responsible for a large percentage of vehicle related deaths each year.  However, defense attorneys argue that the constitutional rights of private citizens should not be abridged in order to curtail the interest of those who intend to drink and drive.  We could not correct a wrong with another wrong.  If we don’t stop this, next thing you know, they will make the license plate of drunk drivers a different color so that everyone knows they have had a DUI, or they could make them place a red flag in their yard, and better yet write it on their forehead “drunk driver!”

Multiple Police Departments in California have pressed the issue of placing mug shots of DUI arrestee online.  This is done in an increased push by law enforcement authorities and various non-profit organizations and anti DUI advocates who have lost loved ones in drunk driving accidents.

DUI Defense requires specialized Knowledge and skill. With the help of our trained attorneys who aggressively defend Drunk Driving charges, avoid jail time and license suspension. Get the most professional Drunk Driving defense in Los Angeles you deserve. 

At the Law Offices of Tony M. Seyfi, criminal defense attorney, our goal is victory for our clients in defending DUI cases, and we are confident of our defense strategies.  If you would like to discuss your DUI case, call us today for a FREE CONSULTATION and case analysis.

Law Offices of Tony M. Seyfi, Los Angeles, California.  Call:  866-533-3363

Originally published here.

CALIFORNIA – A new law signed by the governor on Monday can lead repeat DUI offenders to shed their license for up to 10 many years.

The bill by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, enables a decide to be capable to revoke a perpetrator’s license for up to 10 several years if they have 3 or additional DUI convictions in the past ten a long time. The latest invoice only lets a judge strip the offender of their license for up to three years.

The new legislation is established to take effect on January one, 2012.

According to Hill, the new regulation can enable rid the streets of over ten,000 repeat DUI offenders every single calendar year.
It is estimated that there are roughly one.5 million DUI arrests in California every yr and an individual-third of individuals arrests are repeat offenders.

“This legislation is an crucial step towards creating California’s roads safer,” mentioned Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “Many who have numerous DUI convictions should not be on the street threatening lives.”

Drunk driving affects absolutely everyone on the road. A DUI is a critical infraction with lifestyle-very long penalties. With the amount of accidents skyrocketing due to the fact of alcohol, it’s time to do some thing about it. If you or a beloved one have been involved in a DUI accident, employ a group of DUI lawyers to get you the compensation you deserve.

You may well be entitled to a big sum of funds for any injuries, losses or house harm incurred as a end result of a drunk driver. So call a workforce of DUI lawyers currently to assist you collection up a claim.

Originally published here.