Charles V. Podesta Jr.
BUL 4421 – 004
CRN: 57685
5/22/2013
Case Brief Assignment
Case Name: State v. Cole, 304 S.C. 47, 403 S.E.2d 117
Facts: The Defendant in this case, Roger Wayne Cole, had a suspended license and was unable to drive an automobile in the time of this incident. Due to, his claim, an emergency situation the appellant found it necessary to operate a motor vehicle despite his circumstances (having a suspended license). The appellant made claims that his spouse was pregnant, six months in term, and having pains to the point where emergency help was required. Further information was provided by the appellant that claims, that no phone was available – either his home or the neighbors. The appellant then drove to a nearby telephone, called family to escort his wife to care, and returned home. Upon his return trip, a broken taillight on his vehicle allowed police to perform a traffic stop, and at that time an arrest was made for driving under a suspended license.
Procedural History: Rodger Wayne Cole was convicted for driving under a suspended license, despite his defense. Ultimately the judge in this case did not charge the jury with defense of necessity. As such the appellant appeals his conviction based on the belief that the trial judge errored by not charging the jury with defense of necessity; which the court has acknowledged in previous instances.
Issue: Should the trail judge have refused to allow the jury to hear the defenses argument based on the defense of necessity, given that prior courts have accepted such defense in the terms of prison escape?
Pre-Existing Rules: This case sites two instances of necessity of defense for prior cases: State v. Henderson, 298 S.C. 331, 380 S.E.2d 817 (1989); State v. Worley, 265 S.C. 551, 220 S.E.2d 242 (1975). Additionally, State V. Robinson, 294 S.C. 120, 121-122, 363 S.E.2d 104, 104 (1987), is sited