State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 22 January 1971
• Docket Number: No. 42252,42252
• Citation: 289 Minn. 196,183 N.W.2d 541
• Parties: , 45 A.L.R.3d 1432 STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Terry Dean JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 541

183 N.W.2d 541

289 Minn. 196, 45 A.L.R.3d 1432

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Terry Dean JOHNSON, Appellant.

No. 42252.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 22, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A full consideration of the statutory provisions contained in Minn.St.1967, § 87.87, subd. 1, indicates that the legislature intended to allow snowmobile operation upon the shoulders of highways only in connection with a lawful crossing of a highway or during a time of emergency. The legislature did not authorize snowmobile travel upon the shoulders of highways for any other purpose.

2. In a prosecution for such prohibited offense, the defense of necessity, for which elements of peril or emergency are required, is not available if the defendant could have avoided the emergency by taking advance precautions. There was no emergency or peril in the case at bar.

Weis & Frauenshuh and Dale E. Parker, Paynesville, for appellant.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., James Kelley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Larry K. Houk, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Joe Thompson, County Atty., Willmar, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, MURPHY, KELLY, and ROSENGREN, JJ.

OPINION

NELSON, Justice.

This matter comes before this court on appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the District Court of Kandiyohi County pursuant to a finding that defendant-appellant, Terry Dean Johnson, was guilty of a violation of Minn.St.1967, § 84.87, subd. 1. The finding was made after an appeal from a similar ruling of guilty in the municipal court of Willmar.

The facts as stipulated to in the trial court are as follows: On the afternoon of November 25, 1968, defendant was operating his snowmobile in the ditch portion of the right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No. 23 approximately 2 miles south of New London, Minnesota, near the vicinity of Nest Lake. He was traveling in a northerly direction in the right hand ditch and intended to go to a restaurant-service station, which was about 4 blocks away and on the left or west side of the road. At this point he came to a bridge over a waterway connecting two small lakes, one on either side of the highway. At that time of the year the ice on the waterway was not strong enough to support defendant and his snowmobile. Defendant then left the ditch portion of the highway and crossed to the left shoulder by jeans of the bridge. The right side of the road was impassable for almost the entire distance to the service station because of a steep slope from the shoulder down to the water and to marshy areas. North of the bridge there were guard rails for half a block on both sides of the highway. On the left side of the road where defendant was traveling was a small park where he could have driven his snowmobile in the ditch. While still by the guard rails, or a short distance beyond them, defendant was stopped and issued a ticket by Officer Millard Helgeson of the Minnesota Highway Patrol. The ticket was issued for violation of Minn.St.1967, § 84.87, prohibiting the operation of a snowmobile upon the shoulder of a trunk highway.

Defendant assigns as error the trial court's not permitting defendant to avail himself of the defenses of necessity and reasonableness and thereby raises the issue as to whether such defenses are allowable in criminal actions instituted pursuant to § 84.87.

Minn.St.1967, § 84.87, subd. 1, provided:

'(a) No person shall operate a snowmobile upon the roadway, shoulder, or inside bank or slope of any trunk or county state aid highway in this state except as provided in this act. No person shall operate a snowmobile within the right of way of any trunk or county state-aid highway between the hours of one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise. No snowmobile shall be operated at any time within the right of way of any interstate highway or freeway within this state.

'(d) A snowmobile may be operated upon a public street or highway other than as provided by clause (b) (relating to a direct crossing of a street or highway) in an emergency during the period of time when and at locations where snow upon the roadway renders travel by automobile impractical.'

1. It is clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit, with but two exceptions, the operation of snowmobiles upon the roadway, shoulder, or inside bank or slope of any trunk or county state aid highway without regard to the intention, knowledge, or motive of the snowmobile operator, this being an authorized form of legislative action. See, State v. O'Heron, 250 Minn. 83, 83 N.W.2d 785.

A full consideration of the statutory provisions indicates that the legislature intended to allow snowmobile operation upon the shoulders of highways only in connection with a lawful crossing of a highway or during a time of an emergency. The legislature did not authorize travel upon the shoulders of highways for any other purposes. Minn.St. 645.16 provides in part:

'When th words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.'

2. In a prosecution for such an offense as prohibited by § 84.87, the defense of necessity, for which elements of peril or emergency are required, is not available if the defendant could have avoided the emergency by taking advance precautions. See, Commonwealth v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co., 202 Mass. 394, 88 N.E. 764.

It is clear from the law applied to similar situations that one cannot avail himself of the defense of necessity, thereby excusing a prohibited act, where one has knowingly placed himself in a prohibited position merely because to commit the act would be more convenient. See, The Joseph, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 451, 3 L.Ed. 621; The New York, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 59, 4 L.Ed. 333.

There was no emergency or peril in the case at bar. Defendant knew of the waterway before he set out on his snowmobile. Had defendant made adequate provisions in advance, it would have been unnecessary for him to travel the route he did.

Where courts have dealt with the defense of necessity, it has been held that the defense applies only in emergency situations where the peril is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no alternative but the conduct in question. See, United States v. Holmes, 26 Fed.Cas. 360 (No. 15,383). The defense would be unavailable if the...