Pennsylvania Court Considers Legal Justification for Drunk Driving

September 16, 2010 (Press-News.org) A recent Pennsylvania appellate court decision involved a rarely implemented defense in a DUI/DAI case. In Commonwealth v. Clouser, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered whether a driver was justified in fleeing danger in his vehicle even though he was intoxicated. While the trial court had denied the defendant's request to argue justification, the Superior Court held that he should have been allowed to present this defense.

Appellant Michael Allan Clouser was out at a Franklin County tavern in June of 2009 with his girlfriend. Clouser admitted at trial that he "drank several beers and had several shots of alcohol" before they decided to leave. She got into an argument with another woman in the parking lot over a misunderstanding about the identity of Clouser's car, and shouting soon escalated into an altercation. As a crowd gathered, Clouser entered the growing melee and was hit in the head with a hard object.

The tavern owner came out and told Clouser and his girlfriend to leave before police attention was aroused. Just under five miles from the tavern, the car went into the ditch. Police responded and transported the couple to the hospital with injuries, and Clouser was arrested after a blood test revealed a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.19 percent.

The three-judge appellate panel found that Clouser's drunken driving was justifiable, but he had shown no reason why he drove so far. The court noted the absence of any evidence that he could not have at some point allowed his girlfriend to drive, that there was no safe place to stop, or that he was still being pursued by hostile assailants when he went off the road. While the trial court's error on the justification issue would otherwise have caused reversal of Clouser's conviction and the possibility of a new trial, the Superior Court found that unnecessary: "Without any explanation by Appellant, we find no reason for a factfinder to conclude that Appellant had no reasonable options, within a span of 4.8 miles, to avoid driving in his extreme state of inebriation."

Emphasizing the Importance of Aggressive Trial Representation

A skilled criminal defense attorney takes into account a variety of eventualities when preparing a case for trial. In the present case, Clouser may very well have been able to testify about ongoing threats that at the very least presented an issue for a jury. By preserving all such issues for appeal, an experienced attorney gives his or her client the best chance of defeating charges at every possible opportunity.

Article provided by Law Offices of Basil D. Beck, III
Visit us at www.bbecklaw.com