## Facts

- A deputy observed Christopher Brooks driving 84 mph in a 55 mph zone and veering across three lanes toward a highway exit around 1:00 a.m.
- The deputy’s observations, field sobriety testing, and a breath test indicated Brooks was intoxicated.
- Brooks was charged with felony DUI because it was his third DUI within ten years under Florida law.
- Brooks did not dispute that he drove while intoxicated, but claimed he did so to take a friend’s critically ill cat to an all-night veterinary clinic.
- Evidence indicated Brooks was transporting a very ill cat; the clinic was near the exit where he was stopped; the cat’s owner and two acquaintances were passengers; and the owner stated the cat was “fixing to die.”
- The cat died during or shortly after the traffic stop; the record did not establish whether the clinic was actually open all night.
- Brooks requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity; the trial court denied the request.
- A jury convicted Brooks of felony DUI, and he was sentenced; he appealed the refusal to instruct on necessity.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on necessity where the defendant drove while intoxicated to transport a critically ill cat for emergency treatment.
2. Whether “danger or injury to himself or others” in Florida’s necessity defense includes harm to non-human animals.

## Decision

- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the necessity instruction.
- The court concluded Florida’s necessity defense requires a threatened harm to the defendant or to other persons, and does not extend to harm to an animal.
- Because the asserted emergency involved only a cat, necessity was not a legally available defense on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a defendant is entitled to an instruction only if the defense is legally valid and supported by some evidence.
- Florida’s common-law necessity defense is narrowly construed and generally requires:
  - a reasonable belief in an emergency not caused by the defendant;
  - threatened significant harm to the defendant or other persons;
  - proportionality (avoided harm greater than harm caused by the illegal act); and
  - no reasonable legal alternative.
- In this context, “danger or injury to himself or others” refers to the defendant or other human beings, not animals.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Brooks’s felony DUI conviction because the asserted need to drive while intoxicated to obtain care for a sick cat did not fit Florida’s narrow necessity defense, making a necessity jury instruction legally unwarranted.


Brooks v. State, 122 So. 3d 418 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2013)