between defenses of necessity and duress) with Steven J. Gay-nor, Annotation, Automobiles: Necessity or Emergency as Defense in Prosecution for Driving Without Operator’s License or While License is Suspended, 7 A.L.R.5th 73, 81 (1992) (abandoning previously asserted distinction between necessity and duress); see also Bailey, 444 U.S. at 409-10,100 S.Ct. 624 (noting that while “[c]ommon law historically distinguished between the defenses of duress and necessity ____ [m]odern eases have tended to blur the distinction”). {15} Other jurisdictions have tacitly approved of the defense but have held that defendants failed to establish the factual prerequisites and were therefore not entitled to a jury instruction regarding duress. See Reeve v. State, 764 P.2d 324, 326 (Alaska Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>); State v. Fee, 126 N.H. 78, 489 A.2d 606, 607
holding in dwi case that necessity defense was unavailable where defendant failed to show that she brought her conduct into compliance with the law after situation creating necessity had passed holding that complaining witnesss passive submission to her fathers act of carnal intercourse with her without her consent and that she failed to outcry or resist because she was frightened were insufficient to show she was not an accomplice holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination