 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stodghill v. State2/3/2004
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 6/3/2002
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GUILTY OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, FIRST OFFENSE. SENTENCED TO 48 HOURS IN THE AMITE COUNTY JAIL AND ORDERED TO PAY FINE OF $1,000 PLUS ALL COURT COSTS AND FEES. DUE TO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 48 HOURS AND THE $1,000 FINE ARE SUSPENDED.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 02/03/2004
. George Stodghill appeals his misdemeanor conviction of first offense driving under the influence by the Amite County Circuit Court. He assigns two points of error by the trial court:
I. STODGHILL'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT STODGHILL HAD MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOWING THE DEFENSE OF NECESSITY.
II. STODGHILL'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE, APPLYING THE CORRECT STANDARD ON THE DEFENSE OF NECESSITY, THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS CONVICTION.
FACTS
. In June 2001, George Stodghill and his girlfriend, Carla Kenny, were staying at a country cabin in the woods of Amite County. Stodghill's adult son and daughter and their respective spouses were also guests at the cabin. In the evening of June 10, the family held an outdoor barbeque during which all of the adults consumed various amounts of alcoholic beverages. Stodghill drank three bourbons before retiring for the night with Kenny at approximately 9:30 p.m.
. A few hours later Stodghill awoke to find Kenny violently ill with seizure-like activity. Kenny collapsed and Stodghill instructed his daughter, Hope, to call 911 on the cellular phone but, due to the rural location, the connection was disrupted repeatedly. After making two separate calls, Hope was still uncertain whether the emergency operator had actually been able to ascertain their location. After waiting a while for an ambulance to arrive, Stodghill felt Kenny was too ill to wait any longer and decided to drive her to the hospital for emergency attention.
. On the way, Stodghill was stopped by a state trooper for speeding and crossing the center line. The trooper reported smelling alcohol on Stodghill and requested Stodghill submit to a sobriety test. Stodghill refused after explaining the emergency. The trooper refused to allow Stodghill to proceed but did call an ambulance for Kenny. Based upon Stodghill's refusal to submit to sobriety tests, he was arrested for driving under the influence .
. Stodghill elected to proceed to trial and defended upon the ground of necessity. The trial court found Stodghill guilty and imposed a sentence of forty-eight hours in jail and a $1000 fine but suspended both due to the mitigating circumstances. At a hearing on a motion for new trial, the court further explained it found necessity an inadequate defense because Stodghill had failed to exhaust all possible alternatives before driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol.
ANALYSIS
. On appeal, Stodghill argues the lower court applied the incorrect legal standard by failing to consider the reasonableness of his actions. The State argues that Stodghill's interpretation is unacceptable as overly subjective and necessity does not depend upon the defendant's subjective analysis of the circumstances. Whether or not the lower court applied an incorrect legal standard is a question of law of which we conduct a de novo review. Robertson v. Robertson, 812 So. 2d 998, 1000 ( 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
. In finding that Stodghill had failed to meet the requirements of a necessity defense, the court made the
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|