Should Julia Wozniak be Permitted to Raise the "Necessity Defense?”

Argument
Name
Course
Due Date
Affiliation
Argument
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT JULIA WOZNIAK REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE NECESSITY OF DEFENSE
The defendant, Julia Wozniak, should be permitted to raise “necessity defense” as a defense for her criminal charge of “reckless driving because the facts of the case show that (1) Wozniak's charges were due to an act that prevented the occurrence of a significant evil, (2) the defendant did not have an adequate alternative that she could have pursued, and (3) the resulting harm from the defendant’s actions were not disproportionate to the harm avoided (Stodghill v. Mississippi, 2005).
Wozniak’s Decision to Engage in Reckless Driving Prevented her from Succumbing to Potential Death from Flooding
In Flowers v. Mississippi (2007), the Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that its precedent demands a judge to consider the defendant’s testimony in the manner that would be the most favorable for the defendant, which is highly applicable when attempting to decide whether Wozniak was charged with an act that prevented the occurrence of a greater evil. Julia Wozniak's testimony suggests that there was enough evidence to suggest that her life was in danger from severe flooding in Dover Springs. Before engaging in reckless driving, Julia had been informed by Lena’s neighbor, Beth that there was a recommendation for the evacuation of city residents from officials at 8 pm. The message was in line with her quick conclusion as she checked the window and notice water rushing at high speeds. Julia received a strong recommendation from Garrett, another neighbor to evacuate the premise at around 9 pm. The message aligned with her conclusion after checking through the window. She also saw television indicating that Dover Springs was on “high alert,” and reiterating that some citizens had lost their life due to severe flooding. When she considered evacuating at 10 pm, she judged that the river must have been roughly fifteen feet from the house. It was clear that Julia's reckless driving prevented the occurrence of evil in the form of danger to her life.
Defendant Considered all the Available Alternatives and she had no option but to Engage in Reckless Driving at the Time
The defendant should be allowed to lodge a “necessity defense” for reckless driving as there was no adequate alternative available to the act for which the defendant is charged. Notably, Stodghill v. Mississippi (2005) demands that there must be sufficient evidence indicating that a defendant pursued all available alternatives before the necessity defense is admissible. In the present case, Julia Wozniak did not have an alternative to reckless driving. Her phone ran out of battery and she did not have a charger for her phone. Therefore, she...