Mississippi appeals court orders new trial in DUI case

The Clarion Ledger ^ | February 5, 2004 | Associated Press

[afuturegovernor]

The state Court of Appeals said occasionally judges should consider the reasonableness of a motorist's decision to drive while legally intoxicated. The court kicked back to Amite County a DUI case for that reason.

George C. Stodghill was convicted in 2002 of first offense driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 48 hours in prison and fined $1,000, both of which were suspended due to what the trial judge called mitigating circumstances.

[GovernmentShrinker]

How were these people planning to leave the site of the barbecue, when they were all drunk? And this guy was too drunk to stay in his lane, which means he was endangering his own, his girlfriend's, and other people's lives. And lemme guess what kind of "sick" she was.

Alcohol sucks.

[newgeezer]

This reversal stinks. If I'm the judge, "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency, Mr. Stodghill."

Make up your mind, folks. DUI either presents a danger to the public, or it doesn't. Furthermore, if the first judge is going to suspend his sentence due to "mitigating circumstances," he should suspend the sentence every time the convicted DUI hasn't harmed anyone.

[bassmaner]

Alcohol sucks.

Prohibition, dejure or defacto, sucks worse.

In saner times, the cop would have given him an escort to the hospital instead of hauling him off to jail.

The state Court of Appeals said occasionally judges should consider the reasonableness of a motorist's decision to drive while legally intoxicated.

The appeals court made the right decision.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Self-prohibition is excellent, though.

And I agree with the appellate court, that the trial court must CONSIDER the reasonableness of the defendant's decision to drive. I just hope they consider it and find it unreasonable. Better that one of these drunken idiots dies waiting for an ambulance at their secluded cabin, than some innocent family driving along the road minding their own business dies when the drunk swerves across the center line.

[GrandEagle]

Stodghill was stopped by a state trooper for speeding and crossing the center line.
Lets see... Drunk crosses center line while speeding and head-on's my wife and four children - killing them all. It's ok because his girlfriend drank to much and got sick? - GIVE ME A BREAK!

[Fishing-guy]

It's a Catch-22 situation. Watch your girlfriend suffer or drive to hospital while intoxicated.

Best thing to do is to not get drunk or have a designated driver.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yep, and if you don't do one of those best things, you don't have the right to gamble with OTHER people's lives while trying to get yourself out of the mess you've gotten yourself into.

[GrandEagle]

The appeals court made the right decision.
Understandable view.
I had much more tolerance for DUI until about 10 years ago a drunk in a "dually" Chevrolet hit my parents head on at about 90 mph. He skidded 170 yards down the ditch without the rear axle under his truck before he stopped. He was unhurt - neither was his 6 year old granddaughter (by Gods mercy). My parents on the other hand had to be cut out of the mass that was once their car. The lived (again by Gods grace) but my mother still lives in daily pain.

No sir, if you are going to deliberately incapacitate yourself without making contingency plans, the consequences of your behavior are your problem. It's a shame that he would be that stupid, but his stupidity does not give him any right to endanger my family (or yours) on the road.

When it is someone else's loved ones it is a bit easier to be lenient. When it is your loved ones, it becomes personel.

My opinion: 1st offence $10,000 dollar fine & 6 months in jail. Second: Permanately revoke drivers licence. Third:Jail 10-20 years for attempted murder. It's no different than me going outside and just shooting off 100 or so rounds from my weapon. I'm not aiming at anyone in particular, but it is seriously reasonable to assume that I am deliberately putting all of those around me in danger of loosing their life.

[GrandEagle]

Pardon me, I forgot to add that the above post was respectfully submitted. Just a difference of opinion.

[KrisKrinkle]

Necessity.

A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.
(Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition)

---

"George C. Stodghill was convicted in 2002 of first offense driving while intoxicated..." "Stodghill refused to take a sobriety test after explaining the emergency."

I missed the part where the article says anyone was in point of fact "drunk." It looks like Stodghill was convicted because he refused to take the sobriety test and was therefore presumed to be DUI, not because he was proven to be drunk in fact. Of course it could have been on the arresting officer's testimony, but if so I missed that part too.

"All drank alcoholic beverages" does not mean that all or anyone drank enough to get "drunk" or that if they did, they were, would have still been, or intended to be drunk when they left. In fact, for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

[RKB-AFG]

I agree with your statement. I just took out my Black's Law Dictionary and checked it out too.

[GrandEagle]

A person is excused from criminal liability if he acts under a duress of circumstances to protect life or limb or health in a reasonable manner and with no other acceptable choice.
The question could be is driving a 2000 - 4000lb automobile at highway speeds while not able to control that automobile reasonable.
You did bring out a point that I did miss. I would whole heartedly disagree that one should be charged with DUI for failing to prove his innocence by submitting to a breathalyser test. The burden of proving guilt is on the arresting officer.

[Old Professer]

Who said they were planning to leave?

[templar]

... for all we can tell from the article Stodghill could have passed the sobriety test if he had been inclined to take the time to submit to it.

Well, seems like he must a pretty stupid sort of fellow for not taking the test when he would have passed it, now doesn't it? What's he out so far, $10,000 maybe? or more? And just for refusing to take a test he had already agreed to take when he accepted his license (it's called inmplied consent, and it's legal)?

[WKB]

MS PING

[KrisKrinkle]

"Well, seems like he..."

I won't disagree with "seems like." At least you're not jumping to the conclusion that "he definitly is."

As much as anything, that part of my post was about jumping to conclusions, taking assumptions as fact and then confusing them with what is reality rather than what might be reality. Those tendencies are human and I fall to them myself sometimes, but that doesn't mean that trying to do better is a bad idea.

[MississippiMan]

A highway patrol stopped a man about twenty miles from here who was on his way to the hospital where his baby lay dying. The trooper, known for being an utterly inflexible hard-tail, refused to consider what the man was saying. ARRESTED him and took him to jail. I honestly can't remember if the baby died or not, but I remember being infuriated at the very notion. That's a situation in which necessity should definitely be a factor.

MM

[GrandEagle]

it's called inmplied consent,
I know it's legal but that still doesn't make it right. This is the same line of thought that says "if you have nothing to hide, they why won't you let them search your house, car, etc.
The burden of proof rests with the accuser and we are not required to assist our accuser in any way. And that's Constitutional.

[templar]

The burden of proof rests with the accuser and we are not required to assist our accuser in any way.

YThat's right. And the State does not have to issue a drivers license. If you don't want to agree to consent to a sobriety test on demand, don't accept a drivers license in the first place. Generally, refusal results in loss of the license without any need ofr a DWI charge being filed. A drunk driving conviction rests on court testimony and evidence presented at trial. BTW, how often do you think a sober. non drinking driver refuses a test? People refuse to be tested, knowing it will cost them their license, because thay are drinking and know they will fail a test.