Not guilty of DUI

eelgrass · Feb 10, 2023

60-YEAR-OLD UKIAH MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF DUI BECAUSE…HE HAD TO DO IT

A Mendocino County Superior Court jury returned from its deliberations Friday to announce it had found the trial defendant not guilty as charged.
Thomas Patrick Houston, age 60, of Ukiah, was found not guilty of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and not guilty of driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol .08 or greater.

Interestingly, the defense in the case was that Mr. Houston’s driving was an act of necessity, thus justified under the law.

Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women.

60-Year-Old Ukiah Man Found Not Guilty of DUI Because…He Had to Do It

Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women."

kymkemp.com

Zeke · Feb 10, 2023

Eel,
That reminds me of a story about someone on MM (JK).

Cop pulled a guy over for speeding and asked "where ya going in such a hurry?"

Speeder says, "My wife called and said she's going to get pregnant tonight and I'd sure like to be there".

Cop agreed and let him go!

(I don't have that kind of quick wit nor that kind of luck so we know it wasn't me)

Zeke

Snoopdogg · Feb 10, 2023

Eel, I didn't know you wanted folks to know your business!

eelgrass · Feb 10, 2023

Snoopdogg said:
Eel, I didn't know you wanted folks to know your business!

There but for the grace of God go I.

Sometimes a guy just needs to get the hell out of Dodge. I'm glad the jury understood.

BroadHead · Feb 10, 2023

"Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women."

So, he was having an affair with another woman who was unaware he was married. His wife then caught the two of them practicing new kama sutra moves so he had to flee in his vehicle while intoxicated because he was potentially facing not one, but two Lorena Bobbitts.

Just a guess of course

Bluehair · Feb 10, 2023

Wasn’t flagrante delicto Anthony Weiners screen name?

Rie bread · Feb 10, 2023

BroadHead said:
"Testimony was presented that Mr. Houston had been caught in flagrante delicto by his wife and his driving was necessary to allow him to escape two angry women."

So, he was having an affair with another woman who was unaware he was married. His wife then caught the two of them practicing new kama sutra moves so he had to flee in his vehicle while intoxicated because he was potentially facing not one, but two Lorena Bobbitts.

Just a guess of course

i take it that he asked if his wife wanted to join and neither were to pleased.

Blank · Feb 10, 2023

A friend argued that his ER visit should have been covered 100% as an accident when he broke his leg. Instead they only applied his deductible and covered 80%. The insurance company claimed that his jumping out of a second story window when his wife found him in bed with another woman, and subsequently breaking his leg was his own fault, and not an accident!!

Rie bread · Feb 10, 2023

Blank said:
A friend argued that his ER visit should have been covered 100% as an accident when he broke his leg. Instead they only applied his deductible and covered 80%. The insurance company claimed that his jumping out of a second story window when his wife found him in bed with another woman, and subsequently breaking his leg was his own fault, and not an accident!!

i’d say getting found out was an accident.

eelgrass · Feb 10, 2023

Ta avoid "harm or evil"...

When a necessity defense is allowed by a trial judge, a defendant must prove that:
1. He acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to himself or someone else;
2. He had no adequate legal alternative;
3. The defendant’s driving under the influence and.or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;
4. When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act of driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;
5. A reasonable person would also have believed that driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary under the circumstances; and
6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
The law enforcement agency that investigated the case was the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Justice forensic laboratory.
The prosecutor who presented the People’s evidence to the jury and argued the necessity defense was inapplicable was Deputy District Attorney Sean Phillips.
Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Carly Dolan was the trial judge who presided over the four-day trial.

foundation · Feb 10, 2023

Handled a rollover jeep accident that was DUI. Broken beer bottles everywhere and she sustained some pretty serious injuries including a fractured skull. She ultimately survived and went to trail. Her defense lawyer was pretty slick and argued she had been sober prior to the accident, and the beer soaked into her brain after the accident. Jury found her not guilty. Amazing what a good defense lawyer can spin up.