The district court rejected appellant Richard William Hoagland’s argument that necessity is a defense to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The judge did not permit Hoagland to submit jury instructions on the defense or to present evidence to the jury to support the defense. In this case, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether a defendant may assert a necessity defense to DUI.
Still, Meredith, "Summary of Hoagland v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 37" (2010). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 304.