 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Busby v. State2/1/2002
instructed the jury that even if Busby believed that his act of driving with a revoked license was lawful, this was no defense.
Busby's third and final claim is that the trial judge should not have instructed the jury on "motive". The judge's instruction read:
Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance when considering the charge. You may give the presence or absence of motive, as the case may be, the weight to which you find it to be entitled.
Busby contends that there was no evidence at his trial on the issue of whether he had any particular motive in driving while his license was revoked. He therefore argues that the motive instruction was "misleading" and "confusing", and that it "divert the jury's attention" from the true issues in the case.
Motive was, in fact, raised tangentially at Busby's trial: the State argued that Busby was motivated to obtain an international driving permit because he knew that his Alaska driver's license had been revoked. Thus, there was some reason to instruct the jury on the legal significance of motive. But even leaving this aside, Busby has not shown how the challenged instruction could possibly have prejudiced him.
Conclusion
Although Busby had an international driving permit issued under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic, he still could not lawfully drive in Alaska while his Alaska license was revoked, and the State was therefore authorized to prosecute Busby for driving with a revoked license. Moreover, Busby's mistaken belief that the international driving permit authorized him to drive in Alaska despite the license revocation was no defense to this charge. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|