There are many legal challenges and defenses available to defendants in a DUI case. One of these defenses is an “affirmative defense.” An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant argues that, even if the allegations of the indictment or accusation are true, there are circumstances that support a determination that he cannot or should not be held criminally liable. In the context of a DUI, the defendant would be arguing to the judge or jury that the defendant was in fact DUI, but the defendant is justified or excused in driving under the influence. One justification defense to DUI is “necessity.”
Under federal law, the doctrine of necessity requires:
1) the defendant reasonably believed that a danger or emergency existed that he did not intentionally cause; 2) the danger or emergency threatened significant harm to himself or a third person; 3) the threatened harm must have been real, imminent, and impending; 4) the defendant had no reasonable means to avoid the danger or emergency except by committing the crime; 5) the crime must have been committed out of duress to avoid the danger or emergency; and 6) the harm the defendant avoided outweighs the harm caused by committing the crime.
In 1991, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a conviction for DUI because a jury could have found driving under the influence was justified when Defendant was driving 8 ½ month pregnant wife to the doctor.
If you or
someone you know has been arrested for driving under the influence, contact
the law firm of W. Scott Smith at 404.581.0999 today for a free case evaluation. You’ll find a local Atlanta DUI
attorney ready to aggressively fight on your behalf. You can also find out more
detailed information about Atlanta laws here.
 O.C.G.A. § 16-3-20
 Manners v. Cannella, 891 F.3d 959, 11th Cir. (2018)
 Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605 (1991)