Source
Archive
Press release from the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office:
A Mendocino County Superior Court jury returned from its deliberations Friday to announce it had found the trial defendant not guilty as charged.
Thomas Patrick Houston, age 60, of Ukiah, was found not guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol .08 or greater.
Interestingly, the defense in the case was that Mr. Houston’s driving was an act of necessity, thus justified under the law.
Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women.
While the prosecution argued the law of necessity is not intended and has never been applied to such a factual situation, the trial judge nevertheless allowed the jury to consider the necessity defense as possibly justifying the under-the-influence driving.
When a necessity defense is allowed by a trial judge, a defendant must prove that:
The prosecutor who presented the People’s evidence to the jury and argued the necessity defense was inapplicable was Deputy District Attorney Sean Phillips.
Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Carly Dolan was the trial judge who presided over the four-day trial.
Archive
60-YEAR-OLD UKIAH MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF DUI BECAUSE…HE HAD TO DO IT
Saturday, 4 February 2023, 9:46 am Kym KempPress release from the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office:
A Mendocino County Superior Court jury returned from its deliberations Friday to announce it had found the trial defendant not guilty as charged.
Thomas Patrick Houston, age 60, of Ukiah, was found not guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol .08 or greater.
Interestingly, the defense in the case was that Mr. Houston’s driving was an act of necessity, thus justified under the law.
Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women.
While the prosecution argued the law of necessity is not intended and has never been applied to such a factual situation, the trial judge nevertheless allowed the jury to consider the necessity defense as possibly justifying the under-the-influence driving.
When a necessity defense is allowed by a trial judge, a defendant must prove that:
- He acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to himself or someone else;
- He had no adequate legal alternative;
- The defendant’s driving under the influence and.or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;
- When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act of driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;
- A reasonable person would also have believed that driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary under the circumstances; and
- The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
The prosecutor who presented the People’s evidence to the jury and argued the necessity defense was inapplicable was Deputy District Attorney Sean Phillips.
Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Carly Dolan was the trial judge who presided over the four-day trial.
Last edited:
