 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Huber v. City of Casper11/5/1986
cene of an accident. The Court of Appeals of Alabama reversed on the basis of a refused instruction incorporating the reasonable-fear-as-justification defense. The court said:
"According to the testimony of the defendant he was confronted with danger to life or great bodily harm. It would be unjust and unreasonable to declare that, despite this, he was required to remain at the scene and go through the formality of complying with each and every requirement of the statute." 69 So.2d at 718.
See also State v. Goff, 79 S.D. 138, 109 N.W.2d 256 (1961). For discussion of the "choice of evils" defense of necessity, see, among others, People v. Trujillo, 41 Colo. App. 223, 586 P.2d 235 (1978) (prison escape); People v. Robertson, 36 Colo. App. 367, 543 P.2d 533 (1975) (prison escape); Esquibel v. State, 91 N.M. 498, 576 P.2d 1129 (1978) (prison escape); and State v. Diana, 24 Wn. App. 908, 604 P.2d 1312 (1979) (medical necessity).
The defense was available; its sufficiency need not be judged in view of the criminal -law standards and the decision of the trial court since we otherwise determine this appeal on the first issue. Here, because appellant was not an "operator" of a motor vehicle, appellant's convictions for violating City of Casper Ordinance 18-81, §§ 1(a) and 1(b) are reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of a judgment in accord herewith.
Reversed.
THOMAS, Chief Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result of this case. It does seem to me that subsection (b) of City of Casper Ordinance 18-81 may intend a more passive role than that contemplated by subsection (a) of that ordinance. I agree with the majority opinion that Huber was not an operator of a vehicle at the time of the accident in question. I am not so sure that Huber was not a driver of a vehicle when it became involved in the collision.
Nevertheless I would resolve the case in the same way because it is my opinion that the evidence before the court demonstrated that Huber, Hedges and Ward, singularly or collectively, had in fact given notice of the accident to the Casper Police Department, provided Huber's name and address, and advised of the location of the accident. The contrary testimony is at best equivocal, and the circumstances certainly indicate that somehow or other a response was made to the occurrence of this accident. Consequently, the evidence would not justify a conclusion of failure to report an accident beyond a reasonable doubt.
BROWN, Justice, dissenting.
All that is expected of Dr. Huber is that he obey the law the same as anyone else. If Dr. Huber had called an emergency vehicle and reported the accident, he likely would have been cited as the "hero next door," rather than cited for criminal offenses.
For reasons of his own Dr. Huber fled the scene of the accident, then gave an evasive, incomplete and false account of what happened.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Sir Walter Scott
The Casper Police Department is to be complimented for not caving in to pressure and sweeping the Huber affair under the rug.
Appellate courts must be ever vigilant and not succumb to the temptation of weighing and evaluating the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the trier of fact. There are sound reasons for rules against retrying a case in an appellate court. These reasons are so well known that I need not restate them here.
The easiest way to avoid the appearance of weighing and evaluating the evidence is to omit part of it. The majority has related the evidence and accepted infe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|