State of Missouri v. Jason Michael Hurst
664 S.W.3d 555 (Mo. 2023) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defendant to be entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity under § 563.026, RSMo, there must be substantial objective evidence that: 1) the conduct was necessary as an emergency measure; 2) to avoid an imminent public or private injury; 3) the situation developed through no fault of the defendant; and 4) the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the criminal statute.
Facts:
- In November 2017, Jason Hurst and his wife were evicted from their trailer park.
- Newton County Sheriff’s Department officers arrived at the trailer park to find Hurst and his wife present, and Hurst was under the influence of multiple controlled substances.
- Officers repeatedly warned Hurst to leave or face arrest for trespassing, but he refused.
- When officers informed Hurst he was being arrested, he held onto his pickup truck, leading to an altercation where officers maced and tased him before handcuffing him and placing him in the back seat of a police vehicle.
- While officers were attempting to remove Hurst’s wife from a nearby vehicle, Hurst, still handcuffed, maneuvered into the front seat of the police vehicle and drove away.
- An extensive, high-speed vehicle chase ensued, during which Hurst drove between 50 and 100 mph, recklessly veered across the road, stopped to radio for help, then drove back to the trailer park, nearly collided with a police cruiser, and later drove into downtown Neosho.
- Throughout the chase, Hurst ran stop signs, almost struck two pursuing police vehicles, hit a parked vehicle, and ran an oncoming motorist off the road.
- The chase ended when police performed a Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) maneuver, causing Hurst to overturn the police vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jason Hurst with first-degree tampering and resisting arrest in the Circuit Court of Newton County (trial court).
- At trial, the circuit court declined to give Hurst's proffered jury instructions for the defense of necessity.
- The jury found Hurst guilty on both counts, and the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of five and four years in prison.
- Hurst appealed his convictions, arguing the circuit court erred in refusing the necessity instructions, to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
- After the Court of Appeals issued an opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the circuit court err in refusing to give Jason Hurst’s proffered jury instructions on the defense of necessity when he presented evidence that his actions were justified to protect himself and his wife from possible police abuse?
Opinions:
Majority - Mary R. Russell
No, the circuit court did not err in refusing to provide a necessity defense instruction because Jason Hurst failed to present substantial evidence to satisfy the statutory requirements of the defense. The court determined that Hurst's actions were not “necessary as an emergency measure” because he had several significantly more reasonable alternatives to avoid any alleged imminent harm, such as locking himself in the vehicle and radioing for help, activating sirens, driving a short distance to allow his wife to flee, or exiting the vehicle and fleeing on foot. Furthermore, Hurst’s conduct was objectively unreasonable because the danger he posed to the public through a 10-mile high-speed chase (driving recklessly, hitting a parked car, nearly striking police vehicles, running stop signs, and running another motorist off the road) far outweighed any alleged imminent harm to himself or his wife. Finally, the situation did not develop “through no fault” of Hurst, as he initiated the events by trespassing after eviction, refusing to leave despite warnings, and resisting arrest, thereby creating the circumstances that led to the altercation and subsequent flight. The court emphasized that the necessity defense requires an objective assessment of the circumstances, not merely the defendant's subjective belief.
Concurring - W. Brent Powell
No, the circuit court correctly refused to give a necessity defense instruction. The necessity defense, codified in § 563.026, is unique and has extremely narrow applicability, unlike other justification defenses such as self-defense. This defense relies on objective facts and circumstances, not a defendant's subjective belief that an act was necessary, as is the case for self-defense. Section 563.026.2 establishes a critical gatekeeping role for the court to rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances, if established, would constitute a justification. This gatekeeping function involves the court objectively weighing the competing harms to determine if avoiding the injury outweighed the harm caused by the criminal conduct, without basing the decision solely on the morality or advisability of the statute itself. In this case, Hurst's subjective belief was irrelevant, and the objective facts overwhelmingly demonstrated that the extreme dangers he created by stealing a patrol vehicle and engaging in a high-speed chase far outweighed any alleged dangers to himself or his wife from the arrest, thus failing the required value judgment.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it represents the first time the Supreme Court of Missouri directly interprets and applies the codified necessity defense under § 563.026. The ruling clarifies the objective standard for assessing the defense's elements, distinguishing it from the subjective belief component often present in self-defense. Crucially, the Court emphasizes the judicial gatekeeping function, reinforcing that courts must, as a matter of law, determine whether the objective facts presented could legally support a necessity defense, including a value judgment balancing the harms. This strict interpretation and the delineation of the court's role will likely limit the future applicability of the necessity defense in Missouri, reserving it for truly extraordinary circumstances where all four objective elements are met.
