 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchison v. State6/8/2001
decisions discussed earlier in this opinion, People v. McCaughey , declares that intoxication is not a defense to a charge of willfully failing to appear. However, from the court's explanation of its decision, it appears that the court's true rationale was not the defendant's intoxication per se, but rather the fact that the defendant had acted in willful disregard of his obligation to appear:
[McCaughey] had been released on his own recognizance[.] ... knew [that] he had the responsibility to appear in court on February 24, 1967, yet left the area to go to San Francisco, became involved with the police, made no effort to appear[,] and launched upon a course of conduct designed to avoid his appearance in court. The term "willfully" as used in section 1319.4 [of the] Penal Code ... implies merely the general intent not to appear. defendant, well aware of his responsibility to appear, knew he was avoiding the same and intended to do so. Id. at 686.
In other words, the defendant in McCaughey engaged in an entire course of conduct which, although it may have included a drinking binge, more importantly demonstrated a purposeful disregard of his obligation to appear.
Based on this case law, we conclude that extreme intoxication - intoxication that incapacitates a defendant or that blots out a defendant's memory of the required court appearance - constitutes a defense to a charge of "wilfully fail to appear" under the pre- September 2000 version of AS 12.30.060.
Conclusion
We now turn to the facts of this case. Hutchison testified that, on the night before his scheduled omnibus hearing, he drank so much that he passed out and did not awaken until the next afternoon. Based on this testimony, Judge Jeffery declared that he "ha a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hutchison's conscious goal was not to come to court that morning". If Hutchison did not act with the conscious purpose of avoiding his obligation to appear, he did not act "wilfully" for purposes of the former version of AS 12.30.060. Therefore, based on Judge Jeffery's evaluation of the evidence, Hutchison should have been acquitted.
The judgment of the superior court is REVERSED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|