Man Gets Off DUI, Needed to Escape 2 Angry Women, Wife Caught Him in Bed with Neighbor

That's one way to win a case! Northern California man escapes DUI conviction by arguing driving drunk was necessary to 'escape two angry women' after his wife caught him in bed with a neighbor who kept her llamas at their ranch

• Thomas Patrick Houston, 60, of Ukiah, was found not guilty of two DUI charges under the 'act of necessity' as he had to escape 'two angry women' 
• Thomas was found performing oral sex on his neighbor Ann Landauer while he and his wife Lara were estranged after she asked to visit her llamas on the ranch
• His lawyer argued that he had to escape the women who were hitting and throwing gravel at him

A California man won his DUI case after he justified that drunk driving was necessary to 'escape two angry women' after his wife caught him cheating on her. 

Thomas Patrick Houston, 60, of Ukiah, found his case in the Mendocino County Superior Court on February 3 after he was charged with two DUI misdemeanors in August 2022. 

His lawyer, Albert J Kubanis, argued Thomas drove at a 0.11 BAC (blood alcohol content) out of 'necessity' because he was 'being attacked by two angry women, one of whom was his wife,' court documents revealed. 

Houston's wife Lara, 61, had found him in bed with another woman, their neighbor, Ann Landauer, and a dispute started. Thomas and his wife were 'temporarily living apart due to martial difficulties,' the court documents, viewed by DailyMail.com, said. 

Landauer had been housing her llamas on the couple's land, called the McNab Ranch, when she contacted Lara to inform her 'she would like to visit to check on her llamas,' which Lara set up through her husband. 

Upon Ann's arrival at the ranch, she suggested she go pick up alcohol for the two of them and the pair hopped in her truck to Hopland to buy some. After returning to the ranch, they became intoxicated and then engaged in sexual activity. 

Thomas Patrick Houston, 60, of Ukiah, was found not guilty of two DUI charges under the 'act of necessity' as he had to escape 'two angry women' after his wife found him sleeping with the neighbor during their estrangement 

The home is equipped with surveillance footage available on Lara's phone. The first time she checked it, she discovered her estranged husband and neighbor drinking. But after checking it a second time, she noticed the house was quiet. 

Lara then drove to the residence and found the pair 'engaged in sexual activity' in the guest bedroom. 

Court documents reveal that Ann was 'completely nude,' while Thomas was found wearing a 't-shirt and boxer shorts' with his 'head between Ann's legs.' Upon noticing Lara in the room, they 'jumped out of bed.' 

Lara flew into a rage and began 'pummeling Tommy with her hands.' Ann approached the other woman while Thomas ran out of the room toward his truck. 

Both women eventually became enraged at Thomas and raced outside, where Ann began to throw gravel at him and his truck. 

Kubanis argued that Thomas was 'forced to leave his residence under duress, causing him to drive while intoxicated.'

He then drove 200 yards away before pulling over and quickly falling asleep. Hours later, he would be arrested by the Sheriff's Office and California Highway Patrol for appearing 'intoxicated' at 2.10am. 

Thomas pleaded not guilty in September and was acquitted in a four-day jury trial. 

Mendocino County DA C David Eyster's Office revealed Houston won through the 'act of necessity' 

DailyMail.com contacted the Houstons for comment, but they deferred to their lawyer Albert J Kubanis. DailyMail.com has attempted to reach him for comment. 

The Mendocino County District Attorney's Office revealed on their Facebook that he won the use through the 'act of necessity,' which is justified under the law. 

In order to prevail under the act of necessity, one must prove: 

'1. He acted in an emergency to prevent significant bodily harm or evil to himself or someone else. 

'2. He had no adequate legal alternative.

'3. The defendant’s driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 did not create a greater danger than the one avoided. 

'4. When the defendant acted, he actually believed that the act of driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil. 

'5. A reasonable person would also have believed that driving under the influence and/or with a blood alcohol of .11/.11 was necessary under the circumstances.

'6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.' the DA's Office said.