THE NECESSITY DEFENSE IN DWI CASES
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) is a serious offense with severe consequences. Many people will designate a sober driver to take them home after a night of social drinking. However, some designated driver scenarios present complex legal questions. For instance, what are the legal rights of a person who unexpectedly needs to take over the driving from their designated driver. In Maciel v. State, 689 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals applied the principles of the necessity defense in a DWI case and granted relief due to the unfair denial of a necessity defense instruction.
THE INCIDENT
The case involves Bethany Maciel who was charged with DWI under unusual circumstances. Maciel went to a bar with her brother and sister-in-law where Maciel consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and later did not believe she was safe to drive home. Maciel’s brother volunteered to drive everyone home. Not an ideal choice as her brother was also intoxicated. During the drive home Maciel’s brother began vomiting and stopped the car in the middle of the road. Multiple cars were passing by at a high rate of speed. Smoke was coming from the hood. Realizing they were stopped in the middle of a busy road, Maciel climbed over from the passenger’s seat to the driver’s seat and attempted to drive the car to the closest parking lot. She could not move the vehicle because the parking brake was engaged.
When the police arrived they observed the vehicle still running with Maciel in the driver’s seat and blocking traffic. An officer smelled a burning mechanical odor from the vehicle. He saw Maciel attempt to shift the car gear and he instructed her not to do that. Maciel explained that out of necessity she was attempting to move the vehicle. She emphasized the danger posed by leaving the vehicle in the middle of the road and expressed concern for her brother who had become sick while driving. Nonetheless, the officer arrested her for DWI. A blood draw later revealed her Blood Alcohol Concentration was .234 g/100mL — more than three times the legal limit.
THE NECESSITY DEFENSE
The issue at trial was whether Maciel’s actions were justified under Texas law. The Necessity Defense requires:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.
Maciel claimed that moving the vehicle was necessary to avoid the danger posed by its location. At trial, the officer supported this assertion, as he agreed that leaving a stalled vehicle in the middle of the road was dangerous.
THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION
At trial, the defense requested a Necessity Defense instruction, which would allow the jury to consider Maciel’s justification for driving while intoxicated. The trial court denied this request, because Maciel testified, “I couldn’t get the car to move, so I wasn’t driving. I don’t think I was operating it.” The trial judge reasoned that Maciel did not fully admit to the DWI offense as charged — a prerequisite for a Necessity Defense instruction — and therefore no jury instruction on necessity was warranted. The jury subsequently convicted her of DWI.
THE APPELLATE COURT’S RULING
On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) reversed determining that through her testimony Maciel effectively admitted to all elements of the DWI offense and there was little doubt that she operated the vehicle. The CCA emphasized that “a defendant is entitled to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or uncontradicted, and regardless of how the trial court views the credibility of the defense.” According to the CCA, it was the jury’s role—not the trial court’s—to assess the application of the Necessity Defense.
The Importance of Jury Instructions
The omission of the necessity instruction constituted reversible error, as it deprived the jury of the opportunity to fully evaluate Maciel’s defense. Texas law requires that a defendant is entitled to a defensive instruction if evidence supports it, regardless of how the trial court perceives the defense’s strength or credibility. In this case, both Maciel’s testimony and the officer’s observations provided sufficient evidence for the jury to consider the necessity claim.
BROADER IMPLICATIONS
This case highlights the importance of Necessity Defense instructions in DWI cases. While DWI is a strict-liability offense, Maciel’s motive for driving while intoxicated was a material factor in this case. The law recognizes that certain circumstances may justify otherwise unlawful actions, and it is up to a properly instructed jury to weigh the evidence and make that determination. The CCA reversed and granted a Maciel a new trial.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision underscores the principle that juries—not trial judges—are the ultimate arbiters of fact in criminal cases. By granting her right to the Necessity Defense instruction, the Court of Criminal Appeals ensured Maciel can have a fair opportunity to present her case. This case serves as a reminder to trial courts to liberally consider all aspects of a defendant’s argument, particularly when it involves questions of necessity.
Leave a Reply