State v. Sweet
Docket: 241-C-86; CA A43795
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; November 1, 1988; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Defendant Richardson appeals his conviction for driving with a suspended license under ORS 811.182, arguing that the trial court erred by not providing an instruction on the statutory defense of necessity as outlined in ORS 811.180(1)(a). The court finds that the instruction should have been given, leading to a reversal of the conviction. At trial, the state did not appear, and the facts were presented solely by the defendant. Richardson's employer requested him to drive a truck loaded with lumber, despite his suspended license. He initially allowed his wife to drive, but when an emergency occurred—indicated by a low air pressure buzzer for the brakes—he attempted to assist her as she lost control of the vehicle. Witness testimonies suggested conflicting accounts about who was driving at the time of the accident, with some indicating that Richardson had taken control in response to the emergency. Richardson's defense included the claim that he acted out of necessity due to an immediate threat to safety, which is an affirmative defense under ORS 811.180(1)(a). For this defense, he needed to demonstrate that an injury or threat to a human or animal existed and that the urgency necessitated driving at that time. The court noted that both the nature of the threat and the urgency of circumstances are relevant to establishing this defense. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence from Richardson's wife’s testimony to support the elements of the necessity defense, which should have been presented to the jury. The trial court's refusal to give the instruction was deemed an error that warranted a new trial, as the jury was not informed of a legitimate basis for acquittal. The case is therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial.