In this regard, I believe the decision of the court is correct. The court of Nevada did not award Hoagland protection due to necessity, which is why he filed an appeal. The jury, according to Hoagland, should have been warned by the judge that they have rights to acquit him due to necessity. According to Hoagland, drunk driving, in his case, should be considered with a number of reservations, the main of which is that circumstances forced him to drive drunk. However, the court did not agree with him since the laws of the state of Nevada prescribe in which cases the defendant can receive an acquittal. Hoagland did not hide from persecution and threats to life and health; he did not take the injured person to the hospital; he did not flee from a fire or other catastrophe.
Even though Hoagland sincerely felt that he was acting out of necessity, this is not considered a liquid condition of justification. What can tell about the sincerity of Hoagland’s motives is that he did not consider it important to provide the jury with evidence of the necessity. Most likely, Hoaglan considered it obvious to other people the necessity to drive in a drunken state, because for him the necessity was obvious. Hoagland was forced to drive because he parked in the wrong place. He could park in any other area where his vehicle would not disturb other persons. He was disturbed by parking attendants and asked to move the car, and he, fearing to lose his property, obeyed them. Hoagland could explain to them that he was not feeling well, tired or drunk.
There is no doubt that he did not want to damage the property of another person. However, this situation is reminiscent of other possible cases where a drunken defendant drives a car for fear of missing a train or plane. For the defendant, the situation of being late for the flight is a stalemate and requires an urgent solution. For the court, it is obvious that being late is not a reason for drunk driving, the defendant could use public transport or a taxi. Nevertheless, Hoagland does not deserve severe punishment since his actions did not pose a danger to the people around him, could not harm their life and health. Hoagland erred in thinking that the necessity would be obvious to the jury and judges.
Reference
Hoagland v. State, 240 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2010)