Stodghill v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-01585-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01585-SCT2002-KM-01585-COA2002-KM-01585-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 11-30-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-27-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. CONVICTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, FIRST OFFENSE, AFFIRMED |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-03-2004 Holding: Court of Appeals reversed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: DUI First Offense - Defense of necessity Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Trial on Merits Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-03-2002 Appealed from: Amite County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: Convicted Stodghill of a misdemeanor conviction of first offense driving under the influence of alcohol. Case Number: 01-KR-042-J |
|
| Note: | The original COA opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/OPINIONS/CO13826.PDF | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | George C. Stodghill |
Julie Ann Epps; Samuel H. Wilkins |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | Jeffrey A. Klingfuss; Charles W. Maris, Jr.; Jim Hood |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | DUI First Offense - Defense of necessity |
| Summary of the Facts: | George Stodghill was convicted of a misdemeanor conviction of first offense driving under the influence of alcohol. The trial court imposed a sentence of forty-eight hours in jail and a $1000 fine, but suspended both due to mitigating circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for further findings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Stodghill was stopped by an officer while taking his girlfriend to the hospital. The officer noticed that Stodghill was speeding and crossing the center line and that Stodghill’s eyes were bloodshot, his breath smelled of alcohol, and when he got out of the car, he staggered as he walked. At trial, Stodghill defended on the ground of necessity. The trial court found necessity to be an inadequate defense, because Stodghill had failed to exhaust all possible alternatives before driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol. The State argues that because Stodghill ignored other alternatives to driving drunk, the trial court correctly found that Stodghill could not use the affirmative defense of necessity to avoid conviction. To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must show that the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; there was no adequate alternative; and the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. Factors such as intoxication or abnormality are irrelevant to the inquiry into objective reasonableness. When a defendant attempts to prove an affirmative defense, such as necessity, it is his burden to prove that such circumstances exist so as to substantiate such a defense. Though the record is scant, it fully supports the trial court’s finding that Stodghill had at least one adequate alternative at his disposal the night he chose to drive his girlfriend to the hospital while under the influence of alcohol. His daughter and her husband were present when the girlfriend began exhibiting signs of sickness. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that there were reasonable alternatives available to Stodghill other than driving under the influence of alcohol is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
