John Hernandez v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 373

On May 5, 2014, police stopped a vehicle driven by Oliver Gray for an improperly displayed license plate; John Hernandez was the sole passenger.
Gray was arrested for driving with a suspended license; officers asked Hernandez to exit so the vehicle could be inventoried and towed.
As Hernandez exited, he immediately told officers he had a gun in his pocket; officers recovered the handgun and arrested Hernandez for carrying a handgun without a license.
At trial Hernandez testified Gray threatened him during the stop, told him not to return to jail, and ordered Hernandez to take the gun into his pocket “or else”; Hernandez claimed he took the gun out of fear and to prevent greater harm.
Hernandez tendered a jury instruction on the defense of necessity; the trial court refused to give it, and Hernandez was convicted.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, held the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the necessity instruction because some evidence supported each element, found the error prejudicial, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing Hernandez’s tendered jury instruction on the defense of necessity	State: No instruction was warranted because evidence of necessity was insufficient and any error was harmless	Hernandez: His testimony provided at least some evidence for each element of necessity (emergency, no adequate alternative, proportionality, subjective and objective belief, no substantial contribution)	Court: Error to refuse instruction — some evidence supported each element; error prejudiced Hernandez; conviction vacated and remanded for new trial

Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for jury instruction review)
Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 2002) (three-part instructional review: correct law, record support, not covered elsewhere)
Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (elements and standard for necessity defense instruction)
Howard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (weak or inconsistent evidence can still require an instruction if it has some probative value)
Patton v. State, 760 N.E.2d 672 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discussion of necessity factors)
Burton v. State, 978 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (prejudice analysis where omission of instruction could allow conviction despite lawful defense)
Harrington v. State, 413 N.E.2d 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (instructional errors that mislead jury require reversal)
Brewer v. State, 252 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 1969) (instructions inconsistent or misleading as grounds for reversal)