Background
Jecore King was convicted in Hardin Circuit Court of first-degree fleeing or evading police and sentenced to five years in prison. The charge arose from an October 2024 encounter with Kentucky State Police Trooper Clayton Ellis, who was wearing plain clothes but driving a marked cruiser. After King stopped ahead of Ellis on Interstate 65 and the two examined King’s vehicle for a suspected mechanical problem, Ellis requested King’s license and registration, smelled marijuana, and attempted to detain him.
King resisted the detention, returned to his vehicle, and fled. The ensuing pursuit covered approximately 36 miles and reached speeds exceeding 100 mph. King crossed traffic lanes, caused motorists to pull off the road, drove along a winding two-lane road, and continued until spike strips caused his vehicle to leave the interstate and roll over. He then hid in a cornfield for several hours. King testified that he feared Ellis was a police impersonator and fled to protect himself. The trial court refused his requests to instruct the jury on the choice-of-evils defense and the lesser-included offense of second-degree fleeing or evading police.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing a choice-of-evils instruction because the evidence did not permit a reasonable juror to find King’s conduct necessary to avoid an imminent injury. King had initiated contact with a marked police cruiser, initially intended to comply with Ellis, and had several lawful alternatives available, including complying with the detention, calling 911, locking himself inside his vehicle, driving away safely, or seeking help at a public place.
The court also held that King was not entitled to an instruction on second-degree fleeing or evading police. The evidence overwhelmingly established the aggravating element distinguishing first-degree fleeing: King’s conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical injury, death, or property damage. His extreme speed, lane crossings, hazardous driving around other motorists, and eventual rollover left no reasonable basis for a jury to convict him only of the lesser offense.
Key Takeaways
- A choice-of-evils instruction requires evidence that the defendant reasonably believed unlawful conduct was necessary to avoid an imminent, greater injury and had no reasonable legal alternative.
- A defendant’s asserted fear does not require a justification instruction when the evidence shows multiple safe and lawful alternatives to the charged conduct.
- A lesser-included fleeing instruction is unnecessary when no reasonable jury could find that the defendant’s high-speed flight failed to create a substantial risk of serious injury, death, or property damage.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary threshold Kentucky defendants must meet before receiving instructions on justification or a lesser-included offense. Even when evidence supports an initial fear of harm, the choice-of-evils defense may be unavailable if the defendant continues unlawful conduct after the perceived danger has passed or declines reasonable legal alternatives.
The opinion also confirms that exceptionally dangerous driving can establish the risk element of first-degree fleeing as a matter beyond reasonable dispute, eliminating the need for a second-degree instruction.