Background

• Axelberg and husband consumed alcohol at a resort and later argued at their cabin, where the husband assaulted her.
• To escape imminent harm, Axelberg started the car and drove away as her husband pursued or threatened her.
• Axelberg was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired and license revocation under the implied-consent statute followed.
• She sought judicial review of the revocation and attempted to raise the affirmative defense of necessity.
• The district court held the necessity defense is not within the permissible scope of an implied-consent judicial-review hearing and sustained the revocation.
• The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing the necessity defense is outside the limited issues defined by the statute.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ellingson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 800 N.W.2d 805 (Minn.App.2011) (burden and standard for implied-consent review)
• Weierke v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 578 N.W.2d 815 (Minn.App.1998) (necessity defense not clearly determined in implied-consent cases)
• Boland v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 520 N.W.2d 487 (Minn.App.1994) (availability of affirmative defenses in implied-consent context)
• Johnson v. State, 289 Minn. 196 (Minn.1955) (necessity defense in emergency situations)
• Rein v. Minn. App., 477 N.W.2d 716 (Minn.App.1991) (test for necessity defense: harm from compliance vs. violation)
• Dutcher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 406 N.W.2d 333 (Minn.App.1987) (post-driving consumption as affirmative defense in implied-consent)
• Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300 (Minn.2007) (statutory interpretation and common law interaction)
• Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Dynamic Air, Inc., 702 N.W.2d 237 (Minn.2005) (statutory interpretation: expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle)
• Taylor v. LSI Corp. of America, 796 N.W.2d 153 (Minn.2011) (statutory interpretation principles)