Court Opinion

ID: 9854368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:06:36.064781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:02.586688
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Acting Associate Justice,
dissenting:
1 respectfully dissent and would affirm the conviction of the Appellant. While the facts in this case have much appeal, I am of the view that the evil created by the law declared in the majority opinion creates more problems than it solves.
The trial judge ruled correctly. He had no reason at the time to suspect that a completely new doctrine would be adopted as the law of this state.
The majority opinion brings into being the defense sometimes referred to as “competing harms” or “choice of evils.” It enables an accused person in the first instance to weigh possible harms to himself or others against the possible harms brought about by violating the law. The majority opinion makes available to the thousands of persons whose licenses *51are suspended, every year an additional defense creating additional problems for law enforcement people in administering justice. I recognize that some states have brought into being the choice of evils defense by either statutory law or common law. Some recognize the defense in cases of driving under the influence.
There is nothing in the record warranting a conclusion that “. . . if the Legislature had foreseen the circumstances faced by the defense, it would have created an exception.” Until and unless the Legislature speaks, I would not extend this newly created doctrine.
I disagree that “... public policy mandates that we extend our prior decisions regarding necessity to cases where a defendant is accused of driving under a suspended license.”
Among the evils or harms brought about by this new doctrine is the likelihood that one driving under suspension might not be insured, subjecting the traveling public to the possibility of suffering damages for which no compensation is available. Our statutory law forbids the owner of any vehicle from permitting one whose license has been suspended to drive a motor vehicle. Under our law, a suspended driver cannot be a permissive user.
I would affirm.
Gregory, C.J., concurs.