Question

Kristina Bishop was charged with a third offense of driving under the influence (DUI), a felony. She had twice previously entered into diversion agreements when charged with DUI. A diversion agreement is a contract with the state providing conditions the defendant must fulfill. When entered to avoid criminal prosecution for DUI, a diversion agreement is considered a prior conviction. Bishop had signed the first diversion agreement a year and a half before she became 18. She was almost six years beyond the age of majority at the time of third charge. She argued that the first diversion was voidable, that she was disaffirming , and therefore the first diversion agreement could not count as a prior conviction. Was she correct

Answer 1

Kristina Bishop's argument that her first diversion agreement could not count as a prior conviction is not correct.

Step-by-step explanation:

Kristina Bishop argued that her first diversion agreement was voidable and could not count as a prior conviction. However, her argument is not correct.

According to the information provided, Bishop signed the first diversion agreement a year and a half before she turned 18. In most states, the age of majority is 18. Therefore, she was still considered a minor when she signed the agreement. As a minor, she had the right to disaffirm or cancel the agreement within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. However, if she did not disaffirm the agreement within a reasonable time, it would be considered valid.

In Bishop's case, she was almost six years beyond the age of majority at the time of her third charge. This can be considered an unreasonable amount of time to disaffirm the first diversion agreement. Therefore, the first diversion agreement would still count as a prior conviction for the purpose of her third offense of driving under the influence.

Answer 2

Answer: yes she was correct

IStep-by-step explanation: