available at common law”). 21 Commonwealth v. Delos Reyes, Traf. No. 93-6385 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Jan. 19, 1994) (order at 2). 22 Id. The trial court also found “credible the testimonfy] of the officer who saw the on-coming vehicle and trailed [Delos Reyes].” Id. 23 Courts in similar cases have concluded that a defendant was not justified in driving a vehicle. See, e.g., Oregon v. Haley, 667 P.2d 560, 564 (Or. Ct. App. 1983) (affirming trial court’s decision to withdraw DUI defendant’s necessity defense from the jury where trial court found no evidence of urgent circumstances, and record showed no evidence of attempt by defendant to arrange alternative, available transportation to hospital for injured relative). 24 Cf. Illinois v. Planer, 515 N.E.2d 1042. 1045 (Ill. Ct. App. 1987) (<HOLDING>), appeal denied, 522 N.E.2d 1253 (Ill. 1988).
holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that defendant had knowledge of firearm in close proximity to him when he was driving the car for the cars owner who was a passenger holding that in probation revocation proceeding evidence failed to establish necessity for driving without a license where defendant claimed to have been a passenger in a car being driven by his pregnant fiance who allegedly began to experience such extreme pain that defendant had to drive holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence holding that an evidentiary basis for the search was  lacking  because gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of his car holding defendant cannot establish prejudice merely by alleging court held probation revocation hearing after defendants period of probation expired