State v. Heaton

For a choice-of-evils instruction to be presented to the jury, a defendant must show: “(1) his conduct was necessary to avoid a threatened injury; (2) the threatened injury was imminent; and (3) it was reasonable for him to believe that the need to avoid that injury was greater than the need to avoid the injury that the statute that he was found to have violated seeks to prevent.” State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 483, 841 P2d 1196 (1992). Under ORS 161.200(1)(a), "necessary" may be established where there is no reasonable alternative but for a defendant to commit the crime. State v. Paul, 289 Or App 408, 409, 410 P3d 378 (2017).

Defendant appealed a conviction of felony driving under the influence under ORS 813.011(1). Defendant argued the court erred by declining defendant’s choice-of-evils defense. For a choice-of-evils instruction to be presented to the jury, a defendant must show: “(1) his conduct was necessary to avoid a threatened injury; (2) the threatened injury was imminent; and (3) it was reasonable for him to believe that the need to avoid that injury was greater than the need to avoid the injury that the statute that he was found to have violated seeks to prevent.” State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 483, 841 P2d 1196 (1992). Under ORS 161.200(1)(a), "necessary" may be established where there is no reasonable alternative but for a defendant to commit the crime. State v. Paul, 289 Or App 408, 409, 410 P3d 378 (2017). The Court held Defendant had a reasonable alternative to driving under the influence because defendant could have reached his destination by foot, as it was a short walk. Further, the Court reasoned that the threat of the homeowners following him was not threatening enough to have driven under the influence. Affirmed.