Stodghill v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
892 So. 2d 236 (2005)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
George Stodghill (defendant) and his girlfriend, Carla Kenny, were on vacation at a secluded cabin with Stodghill’s children and their spouses. One evening, Kenny developed seizure-like symptoms. Stodghill’s daughter, Hope Armstrong, called for an ambulance but initially had difficulty communicating the cabin’s location due to poor reception. Believing that an ambulance was not coming, Stodghill decided to drive Kenny to the hospital. However, Stodghill had consumed three drinks that evening and was pulled over by a state trooper. The state trooper called an ambulance for Kenny and arrested Stodghill for driving under the influence. Armstrong and her husband arrived at the scene. The state trooper observed that Armstrong and her husband did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol and permitted them to take Stodghill’s car and continue to the hospital. Stodghill was charged with and convicted of driving under the influence. Stodghill moved for a new trial, arguing that his offense was excused by necessity. The Amite County Circuit Court rejected the necessity defense, finding that Stodghill failed to exhaust all possible alternatives before driving under the influence. The court of appeals reversed. The prosecution appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.