Toops v. State
643 N.E.2d 387, 1994 WL 665746, 1994 Ind. App. LEXIS 1694 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of necessity is a recognized defense in Indiana, which excuses criminal conduct if the defendant reasonably believed the conduct was necessary to avoid a greater harm and did not substantially contribute to the emergency.
Facts:
- In the late evening, Terry Toops, Warren Cripe, and Ed Raisor were drinking beer at Toops's home.
- Around 3:00 a.m., the three men decided to drive to a store in Toops's car.
- Because Toops was intoxicated, he allowed Cripe to drive while Toops sat in the front passenger seat.
- Police officers on patrol observed Toops leaning out of the passenger window and made a u-turn to follow the car.
- Seeing the police, Cripe, who was a minor and had been drinking, panicked, let go of the steering wheel, and jumped into the back seat.
- The vehicle began to careen out of control, veering across multiple lanes of traffic.
- Toops slid over from the passenger seat, grabbed the steering wheel, and brought the car under control.
- When officers pulled the car over, they found Toops in the driver's seat and a breath test revealed his BAC was 0.21%.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Toops was charged with several alcohol-related traffic offenses.
- At the conclusion of his jury trial, Toops's counsel tendered a proposed jury instruction on the defense of 'Necessity'.
- The trial court refused to give the instruction, ruling that necessity is not a recognized defense in the State of Indiana.
- The jury found Toops guilty on all remaining counts.
- Toops appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing the trial court erred in refusing his proposed jury 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:
Did the trial court err by refusing to give a jury instruction on the defense of necessity where the defendant, while intoxicated, momentarily took control of a vehicle to prevent an impending accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Rucker, J.
Yes. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity because it is a recognized common law defense in Indiana and there was evidence in the record to support it. The court reasoned that while Indiana does not have common law crimes, it does recognize common law defenses. A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any defense which has some foundation in the evidence, even if that evidence is weak. Here, the evidence that Toops grabbed the wheel of a careening car to prevent a collision was sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether his illegal act of operating a vehicle while intoxicated was necessary to prevent the greater harm of a serious accident. The trial court's refusal to give any instruction on the defense was therefore an error.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally recognizing and defining the common law defense of necessity in Indiana criminal law. By adopting a clear, six-part test from California precedent, the court provided a workable framework for lower courts to apply in future cases. This decision establishes that defendants facing a 'choice of evils' scenario have a right to have the jury consider this defense, provided there is some evidentiary basis for the claim. It solidifies the principle that common law defenses remain valid in the state's jurisprudence, even in the absence of a specific statute.
