## Facts

- George C. Stodghill and his girlfriend, Carla Kenny, spent a weekend at a secluded cabin with family; alcohol was consumed during a barbecue, and Stodghill drank several bourbons.
- Later that night, Kenny appeared ill, collapsing and showing seizure-like symptoms as described by lay witnesses.
- Stodghill’s daughter called 911; after initial difficulty, the dispatcher confirmed the cabin’s location, with Stodghill assisting in confirming the address.
- After waiting briefly, Stodghill decided to drive Kenny to the hospital rather than wait for an ambulance, claiming he believed the ambulance was not coming.
- A state trooper stopped Stodghill for speeding and crossing the center line and observed signs of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, and staggering).
- Stodghill refused a portable breath test and explained he was transporting his sick girlfriend.
- The trooper called an ambulance for Kenny, arrested Stodghill for DUI, and allowed Stodghill’s daughter and son-in-law—who did not appear impaired—to drive the vehicle to the hospital.
- The record contained no medical evidence establishing the cause, severity, or confirmed existence of Kenny’s medical condition beyond lay testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether Stodghill proved the affirmative defense of necessity to excuse driving under the influence to obtain emergency medical care.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the necessity defense and entering a DUI conviction.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and affirmed the circuit court’s DUI conviction.
- The court held Stodghill failed to carry his burden on necessity, especially the requirement that no reasonable lawful alternative existed.
- The court relied on evidence that 911 had confirmed the location for an ambulance and that an apparently sober driver was available.
- The court also noted the absence of objective medical proof supporting a clear and imminent danger sufficient to justify criminal conduct.
- The court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility and fact findings in the bench trial.

## Legal Principles

- Necessity is a narrow affirmative defense requiring proof that:
  - the defendant faced a clear and imminent danger;
  - the defendant reasonably expected the illegal act would prevent the danger;
  - no reasonable lawful alternative would be effective; and
  - the harm avoided outweighed the harm caused by the illegal conduct.
- The defense fails when reasonable, lawful alternatives (e.g., waiting for emergency services or using a sober driver) were available but not used.
- Appellate review respects trial-court fact finding on necessity where supported by the record, including credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Stodghill’s DUI conviction because the necessity defense was not established: the evidence showed reasonable lawful alternatives to intoxicated driving, and the asserted medical emergency was not supported by objective proof sufficient to justify the criminal act.


Stodghill v. State, 892 So. 2d 236 (Miss. 2005)