Evidence
Woman Gets New DUI Trial, Can Argue She Had to Drive to Avoid Bar Fight
Posted Nov 13, 2009 6:17 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Reversing the drunken-driving conviction of a woman who wasn't allowed to argue at trial that she had to flee a dangerous bar fight, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled that Lisa Marie Leprowse will get a new trial to present her defense.
A Missoula District Court judge had agreed with the prosecution that Leprowse could have simply called 911 for help and waited in her car, instead of driving 14 miles, recounts the Associated Press.
But “the affirmative defense of compulsion is a well-recognized basis for finding a person not guilty of a charged offense, even though her conduct appears to fall within the definition of that offense,” writes Supreme Court Justice Patricia Cotter in the unanimous opinion.
"Whether Leprowse was actually compelled to drive the distance of 14 miles, and ostensibly commit a DUI, is at its essence a question of fact based on circumstances,” and hence a matter for the jury to decide, the court held.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Nov 13, 2009 6:34 PM CST
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then, if they get pissed off, thy’re a mile away, and barefoot. But 14 miles? Seriously? What in the Hell were they fighting with? Howitzers? And this decision was actually from the highest court Montana maintains?
Flag this comment
Dayron Leon
Nov 13, 2009 6:37 PM CST
I agree with the reasoning and holding of the case.
There are many situations which fall under the individual circumstances of certain situations, even if they do violate a statute.
We have to look at intent for many cases, if intent could be proven by factors outside of subjective testimony. Objective factors matter in a case.
E.g., Student goes to school out of state. Student is under parents’ insurance policy. Student gets into car accident and presents insurance (under parents’ name). Parent forgot to pay insurance premium and insurance is at default. Was the student driving without valid insurance? Yes. However, was he liable for knowing this in advance? No. He was under the impression that parents would pay insurance, thereby, student SHOULD be exempt, and parent should be held liable.
Just an opinion - but like the film “Magnolia”, things like this happen all the time.
Flag this comment
Steven Levy
Nov 13, 2009 7:51 PM CST
@1 The court isn’t saying she’s innocent, just that she is to be allowed to make the argument. I suspect and hope that a jury charged with determining the facts will see it as you do, that 14 miles goes beyond an affirmative defense, at least 13 miles beyond it. But that is the jury’s job in our system, and that’s what the appeals court is holding.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 13, 2009 10:37 PM CST
In so doing, the court appears to be holding that, in its opinion, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant (who has the burden on an affirmative defense) was “compelled” to flee this dangerous bar fight by vehicle, over a distance of 14 miles. Unless one or more participants in the fight had unlimbered a howitzer, I disagree with the court’s conclusion that a reasonable (even sane) jury could find that. But, maybe that’s why Montana appellate judges are making the big bucks.
Flag this comment
Sheila
Nov 14, 2009 10:09 PM CST
Right about the time the Unabomber was captured, the state of Montana experienced several other high-profile incidents, one of which was as I recall a shoot-out with a group that was a fringe of the Radical Right. This was also at the height of the scare over Mad Cow Disease. Someone proposed a new state motto: “Montana. At least our cows are sane.”
Flag this comment
Been There
Nov 16, 2009 4:48 PM CST
The jury is the proper trier of the fact on teh question of whether 14 miles was excessive. I understand that large stretches of Montana are quite desolate, with long stretches of desolate road. Perhaps the defendant could be found to have acted reasonably, once on the road, to try to proceed to the next exit or inhabited area rather than risk being caught alone by a pursuer or stopping and risking getting ploughed into by an 18-wheeler. These are factual arguments, and she shold be able to present them,
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.