Opinion ID: 2544595
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Defense of Necessity

Text: ¶ 7. The necessity defense entered Mississippi's jurisprudence in 1992 in Knight v. State , [8] which held that where a person reasonably believes that he is in danger of physical harm he may be excused for some conduct which ordinarily would be criminal, [9] and set forth the defense's three elements: (1) the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must [have been] no adequate alternative; and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. [10] ¶ 8. Flowers testified that he broke in the house because someone was trying to shoot him. The prosecutor closely cross-examined him about other options, but Flowers insisted someone was after him with a gun, and he had no time to do anything but break into the house. This testimony, if believed, established a prima facie showing of the necessity defense. ¶ 9. In a criminal prosecution, trial and appellate judges do not always find the defendant's testimony believable, credible, or consistent with other evidence. Still, it is evidence. And no citation of authority is necessary for the bedrock legal principle that juries, not judges, determine the weight and credibility of the evidence  including the defendant's testimony. ¶ 10. And it is the jury's responsibility, after determining the facts, to apply them to the law provided by the trial court. Yet, had the jurors believed Flowers's testimony, they could not have done so, because the trial judge provided them no instruction on the law of necessity. Because the trial court failed properly to instruct the jury on the law of the defense of necessity, [11] we must reverse Flowers's conviction and remand this case for a new trial.