I was talking to a Quakertown DUI lawyer as well as a Bucks County Criminal lawyer about the theory of "justification" or "necessity" in a DUI.
For example, picture yourself at home and you are consuming alcohol. What if your wife was sick and needed to go to the hospital? Or you were in fear of your life because someone wanted to hurt you? Can you be charged with a DUI in Pennsylvania?
There's a case called Clouser that illuminates the standard of law. The cite is Commonwealth v. Clouser, 2010 PA Super 115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). In the case, after the defendant had drinks at a tavern with his girlfriend, the girlfriend exited the tavern, and saw another woman sitting in what she believed was defendant's car. She demanded that the woman exit the car, which culminated into a physical fight involving numerous people. Defendant, upon seeing his girlfriend, also became involved in the fight. Defendant averred that as the crowd became larger, the tavern owner urged him to leave in order to avoid a police presence at the tavern. Accordingly, defendant drove away with his girlfriend. Approximately 4.8 miles away, his car became stuck in a ditch. A blood test revealed defendant's blood-alcohol level at 0.19%. At trial, defendant requested a justification charge, claiming that he had to flee the tavern because he faced imminent danger there. The appellate court found, inter alia, that although defendant presented evidence that he initially faced a clear and imminent harm, he failed to offer any evidence that driving at least 4.8 miles away from the tavern was the minimum action necessary to avoid the danger. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant's request for a § 503 justification instruction.
So here's the general ruling --
In order to be entitled to an instruction on justification by necessity as a defense to a crime charged, a defendant must offer evidence to show: (1) that he was faced with a clear and imminent harm, not one which is debatable or speculative; (2) that he could reasonably expect that his actions would be effective in avoiding this greater harm; (3) that there is no legal alternative which will be effective in abating the harm; and (4) that the legislature has not acted to preclude the defense by a clear and deliberate choice regarding the values at issue.
As with any offer of proof, it is essential that the offer of proof, justifying an instruction on justification by necessity as a defense to a crime charged, meet a minimum standard as to each element of the defense so that if a jury finds it to be true, it would support the affirmative defense--here that of necessity. This threshold requirement is fashioned to conserve the resources required in conducting jury trials by limiting evidence in a trial to that directed at the elements of the crime or at affirmative defenses raised by the defendant. Where the proffered evidence supporting one element of the defense is insufficient to sustain the defense, even if believed, the trial court has the right to deny use of the defense and not burden the jury with testimony supporting other elements of the defense.