Read Hoagland v. State, 240 P.3d 1043 (2010) available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8002120339805439441&q=Hoagland+v.+State&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_ylo=2009
In Hoagland, the defendant wanted to assert a necessity defense to the crime of driving while under the influence. The Nevada Legislature had never addressed or mentioned a necessity defense. Do you agree with the Court's ruling in this case? Why, or not?
If you agree with the Court's ruling, you may think that it is up to the Legislature to decide whether or not to allow defendants to use a necessity defense in cases like this. You may also think that it would be unfair to allow some defendants to use a necessity defense while others could not.
If you do not agree with the Court's ruling, you may think that defendants should be able to use a necessity defense if they can show that their actions were necessary to avoid a greater harm. You may also think that the Legislature should have addressed the issue of a necessity defense before the Hoagland case went to trial.
Copyright © 2012 - 2024 Apaxresearchers - All Rights Reserved.