Stodghill v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed a misdemeanor first-offense driving-under-the-influence conviction in which the defendant asserted the affirmative defense of necessity. The court held that adequate alternatives to driving while intoxicated were available, including having his daughter or her husband drive the ill passenger to the hospital. It reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court's conviction.

Holdings

1. A defendant asserting the affirmative defense of necessity bears the burden of proving that the criminal act was done to prevent a significant evil, that there was no adequate alternative, and that the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.
2. The evidence supported the circuit court's finding that Stodghill had at least one adequate alternative to driving his girlfriend to the hospital while intoxicated: asking his daughter or her husband to drive.
3. The Court of Appeals erred in requiring the circuit court to make an on-the-record identification or general justification of the alternatives available before rejecting the necessity defense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court's finding that Stodghill failed to establish the necessity defense because an adequate alternative to driving while intoxicated was available was supported by the evidence.
2. Whether a trial court must make an on-the-record identification and evaluation of the specific alternatives available when rejecting a necessity defense.

Disposition

reversed