AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

Decision Content

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

  • The Defendant was convicted of DWI after fleeing a party in his vehicle to escape an escalated fight involving weapon-wielding attackers. Other guests also scattered to their vehicles during the incident. The Defendant argued that driving away was his only reasonable means of escape from the attackers.

Procedural History

  • [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

  • Appellant: The Defendant contended that he had no reasonable alternative but to drive away to escape the attackers, arguing that seeking refuge in his vehicle or running back to the house were not viable options given the circumstances.
  • Appellee: The State argued that the Defendant had reasonable alternatives to driving away, such as seeking refuge in his vehicle without driving or running back to the house, which was not an empty trap as the hostess and a friend had returned.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the trial court erred in refusing the Defendant's defense of duress by concluding he had reasonable legal alternatives to driving away from the scene.

Disposition

  • The conviction of DWI against the Defendant was affirmed.

Reasons

  • The Court, led by Chief Judge CELIA FOY CASTILLO with Judges JAMES J. WECHSLER and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE concurring, found the Defendant's arguments unpersuasive. The Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the Defendant failed to satisfy the third element of the duress defense, which requires that the defendant have no reasonable legal alternative to the criminal conduct. The Court noted that the Defendant could have sought refuge in his vehicle without driving or could have run back to the house, as there was no evidence that the attackers pursued anyone after the initial scattering. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that driving away was his only reasonable escape, concluding that there were other reasonable means of escaping the threat.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.