Whitten Case Study

Words: 1413
Pages: 6

Discussion
Whitten will probably not prove the defense of necessity because a court will likely find that there was no immediate threat and that there were reasonable alternatives to driving. In Garner, the defense of necessity requires the defendant to prove “(1) he was compelled to [drive] by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or others; (2) the urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for [him] to violate the law; and (3) [he] ceased . . . as soon as the necessity or apparent necessity . . . ended.” Gar. Stat. tit. 24, §135(A)(1)–(3) (2011). The second prong has been further clarified that “’Urgency of the circumstances’ requires that there was no adequate or reasonable alternative to committing the offense.” Id. §134(B).
Prongs one and two must be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant’s position.” Falk v. State, 125 P.3d 1106, 1108 (Gar. Civ. App. 2005). Under the first prong, it is up to the court to decide whether Whitten
…show more content…
In Brownfield, the court decided the defendant had exhausted all options because he could not afford a cab, tried contacting friends, and could not quickly walk to his destination to rescue his friend. Id. at 421 (internal citation omitted). In Falk, the court found that he could have walked, but it would be unreasonable to leave his mother alone in her condition. Falk, 125 P.3d at 1108. For Falk, the magnitude of his mother potentially dying was weighed against how long it would take him to leave her alone in the car, which the court found to be unreasonable and justified driving. Id. In Brook, it was found that the defendant was not justified to drive because the person threatened was an animal because the phrase “or another” applies only to humans. Brook, 221 P.4th 418,