With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not an excusable result of duress. Defendant appealed to the district court, claiming error in the metropolitan court’s review of the evidence. The district court, however, did not evaluate the evidence. Instead, it held as a matter of law that duress was unavailable to a defendant charged with DWI. II. DISCUSSION A. Availability of Duress Defense to a DWI Defendant {4} The question of whether the defense of duress is available to a defendant in a DWI case is an issue this Court has not previously been called upon to address. The specific issue is whether it is of legal consequence that a defendant charged with DWI allegedly violated the law only to escape a threat of immediate death or great bodily harm. Compare Esquibel v. State, 91 N.M. 498, 501, 576 P.2d 1129, 1132 (1978) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v.

A: holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime
B: holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime
C: holding that duress is a defense available in new mexico except when the crime charged is a homicide or a crime requiring intent to kill
D: holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
C.