The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Jackson Rathod for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense. The court ruled on October 28, 2026, that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of necessity. This decision affects Rathod, who was found guilty after a jury trial, and clarifies the legal standards surrounding the necessity defense in OWI cases.

The case, City of Kenosha v. Jackson Rathod, docket number 2024AP002307, arose from an incident that occurred on December 11, 2022. Rathod was arrested after law enforcement found him asleep in his running vehicle, showing signs of intoxication. The case highlights the legal implications of driving under the influence and the parameters of justifying such actions under the necessity defense.

In the early morning hours of December 11, 2022, a law enforcement officer approached Rathod's vehicle, which was parked on the side of a street with its engine running. The officer found Rathod slumped over in the driver's seat. Upon waking him, the officer observed signs of intoxication, including a strong odor of alcohol and vomit on Rathod's clothing and inside the vehicle. Rathod explained that he had been at a party and was warming up his car before driving home.

Rathod testified that he had left the party around midnight and was feeling unwell after consuming alcohol. He stated that he had vomited and did not want to return inside the house smelling of vomit. Instead, he decided to sit in his car to feel better and turned on the engine for warmth. He claimed that he was concerned about hypothermia and believed it was necessary to keep the car running.

During the trial, Rathod requested that the jury be instructed on the necessity defense, which allows for justification of illegal actions if they are taken to prevent imminent harm. However, the trial court denied this request. The court found that Rathod's own testimony indicated he was not under pressure from natural forces that would justify his actions. The judge noted that Rathod had an alternative means of staying warm—returning to the party just a two-minute walk away.

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Gundrum, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court highlighted that Rathod's testimony showed he was aware of the option to return inside the house but chose to stay in the car due to embarrassment. The court stated, "Rathod's own testimony conclusively shows he in fact did not believe his act of turning on his car was 'the only means' of preventing harm to himself." This ruling clarifies that the necessity defense requires the defendant to demonstrate that there were no alternative means to prevent harm.

The court emphasized that Rathod's choice to operate his vehicle while intoxicated was not justified under the necessity defense, as he had other options available to him. The court referred to previous cases to support its ruling, stating that the necessity defense does not allow for taking the least embarrassing course of action. Rathod's decision to stay in the car, rather than return to the house, was based on personal preference rather than an imminent threat to his safety.

This ruling has implications for future OWI cases in Wisconsin, particularly regarding the necessity defense. It reinforces the requirement that defendants must provide evidence that they had no alternative means of avoiding harm to justify their actions legally. The decision also serves as a reminder that personal embarrassment or discomfort does not meet the legal standard for necessity.

Looking ahead, Rathod's conviction can potentially be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, details regarding any related cases or further legal actions were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of jury instructions and the application of the necessity defense in OWI cases.