Summary of Toops v. State (1994)

Facts:  Mr. Toops, along with 2 friends, were drinking beer at Toops’ home from around 11:00pm until 3:00am.  The men decided to go into town to visit a convenience store.  Mr. Cripe offered to drive due to Mr. Toops’ perceived intoxication.  While driving, Cripe spotted a police car on routine patrol, but panicked as he was a minor who had been consuming alcohol.  Cripe jumped from the driver’s seat into the back seat abandoning the wheel, thus allowing the car to careen out of control.  An intoxicated Mr. Toops jumped into the driver’s seat in an effort to keep the car from careening out of control to a greater extent.

The police immediately ascertained the situation and placed Toops, with a BAC of .21, under arrest for DUI, as well as several other traffic offenses.

Procedure:  Toops was convicted of DUI, but all of the smaller traffic charges were dropped.

Ultimate Holding:  DUI conviction reversed and remanded.

D (Toops) argues a defense of necessity.  If he hadn’t jumped behind the wheel when he did, great harm could have resulted.

P (State) argues that necessity is NOT a recognized defense in the State of Indiana.

Issue:  Is Stoops’ voluntary control of the car while intoxicated covered by the defense of necessity?  Yes.

Law:

1.  Prevent a significant evil.

2.  No adequate alternative.

3.  Harm caused by act must not be disproportionate to harm avoided.

4.  Accused must have a good faith belief that his act was necessary to prevent harm.

5.  Belief reasonable.

6.  Accused must not have substantially contributed to creation of emergency.

Rationale:  This “choice of evils defense” arises when a man is faced with a situation where he is forced to choose between a prohibited act and act that is likely to prevent further harm.