Brooks v. State
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14811, 2013 WL 5225190, 122 So. 3d 418 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of necessity is available for a charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in Florida, but it only applies when the defendant acts to prevent an imminent threat of danger or serious bodily injury to a person, not an animal.
Facts:
- Christopher Brooks' friend owned a cat that became very ill.
- Brooks believed he was the only person available to transport the sick cat to an all-night veterinary clinic for treatment.
- Brooks drove the cat while under the influence of alcohol, with the cat's owner and two acquaintances as passengers.
- At approximately 1 a.m., a sheriff's deputy observed Brooks' vehicle travelling at eighty-four miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour zone and veering across three lanes of traffic.
- The deputy initiated a traffic stop, and subsequent field sobriety and breathalyzer tests confirmed Brooks was intoxicated.
- During or shortly after the traffic stop, the cat died.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Christopher Brooks with felony DUI in a Florida trial court.
- At trial, Brooks requested that the judge provide the jury with an instruction on the defense of necessity.
- The trial court denied the request for the jury instruction.
- A jury convicted Brooks of felony DUI.
- The trial court entered a judgment and sentence based on the jury's verdict.
- Brooks, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, challenging the trial court's refusal to give the necessity defense instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the defense of necessity apply to a charge of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) when the claimed emergency involves preventing harm to an animal rather than a person?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Wallace
No. The defense of necessity is not available for a DUI charge when the asserted emergency involves the threat of harm to an animal instead of a person. The court first recognized that the necessity defense is, in principle, available for DUI charges in Florida. It then established a five-element test for the defense to apply. The first element requires that the defendant reasonably believed their action was necessary to avoid an imminent threat of danger or serious bodily injury to themselves or 'others.' The court interpreted the term 'others,' as used in the defense and in the standard jury instructions referring to 'a third person,' to encompass only human beings. Because Brooks' motivation was to save an animal, he failed to present any evidence supporting this first essential element of the defense, making it unavailable to him regardless of the other circumstances.
Analysis:
This case is significant as a matter of first impression in a Florida District Court of Appeal, formally establishing that the necessity defense is available for DUI charges. However, the decision's primary impact is its limitation on the scope of that defense. By explicitly excluding animals from the definition of 'others' for the purpose of the necessity defense's first element, the court creates a bright-line rule that will prevent future defendants from justifying intoxicated driving based on a claimed emergency involving a pet or other animal. This holding clarifies the defense's application and reinforces the legal distinction between human and animal life in the context of justifying criminal conduct.
