Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Nelson v. State | 597 P.2d 977 (1979)

A criminal defendant may argue that he or she had no choice but to commit a crime because of an emergency. This defense is referred to by the legal term necessity. In Nelson versus State, the court considers whether borrowing heavy equipment without permission to free a vehicle stuck in the mud qualifies for the necessity defense.

In the early morning hours of May 22nd, 1976, Dale Nelson drove his 4-wheel drive truck onto a side road off an Alaskan highway. Nelson’s truck got stuck in a marshy area and he was concerned that the truck might tip over. Nelson and his two passengers worked to free the truck without success for approximately an hour. Several people stopped and offered him assistance while his vehicle was stuck. Nelson initially turned down offers of rides and phone calls for assistance. Another acquaintance stopped, attempted to help, and then drove Nelson to a nearby highway department yard. Despite a sign declaring no trespassing, Nelson entered the yard and drove off in a dump truck. Nelson tried to free his vehicle with the dump truck, but the dump truck also became stuck in the mud.

Later that morning, another man named Curly approached Nelson, indicating that his vehicle was stuck further down the highway. Nelson and Curly returned to the highway department yard and drove off in a front-end loader. They used the front-end loader to free the dump truck, then used the dump truck to free Curly’s vehicle. The pair returned the dump truck to the yard. Nelson tried to use the front-end loader to free his truck, but the loader also became stuck. In frustration and exhaustion, Nelson and his companions gave up and went to sleep. Two of them slept in a tent and one in Nelson’s truck. A highway department employee later woke them and placed them under citizen’s arrest. Nelson’s vehicle was eventually freed from the mud after three days.

A jury convicted Nelson of reckless destruction of personal property and joyriding. Nelson appealed the decision, arguing that the judge’s instruction to the jury regarding the necessity defense was erroneous. The superior court affirmed Nelson’s conviction. The Alaska Supreme Court granted review.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть