Court Opinion

ID: 9580843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:31.312711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:33.845686
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the majority has failed to mention the most important fact in the offer of ‘proof that is: the defendant kidnapped the child a week before a scheduled custody hearing. The pendency of the legal custody hearing was the defendant’s legal alternative to kidnapping.
The rationale of the necessity defense lies in the defendant being required to choose between the lesser of two evils and thus avoiding a greater harm by bringing about a lesser harm. The necessity defense can therefore be said to require a showing of three essential elements:
1) The act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil; 2) There must have been no adequate alternative; 3) The harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided.
Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073, 1078 (Alaska 1981); Gerlach v. State, 699 P.2d 358, 360 (Alaska App.1985).
As can be seen from the foregoing, the necessity defense is very limited and depends on the lack of a legal alternative to committing the crime. This defense does not apply except in emergency situations where the threatened harm is immediate and the threatened disaster imminent. It excuses criminal conduct only if it is justified by a need to avoid an imminent peril and there is no time to resort to legal authorities. The Defendant must be stripped of all options by which he might avoid both evils. State v. Johnson, 320 N.W.2d 142, 147 (S.D.1982); State v. Walton, 311 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Iowa 1981); State v. Reese, 272 N.W.2d 863 (Iowa 1978); State v. Johnson, 289 Minn. 196, 183 N.W.2d 541, 544 (1971). See also LaFave and Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law, § 50, at 388 (1972); Wharton’s Criminal Law § 588 (14th ed. 1978).
As was stated by the court in People v. Patrick, 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 179 Cal.Rptr. 276, 282 (1981):
... Although the exact confines of the necessity defense remain clouded, a well established central element involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e. the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent. (Citation omitted). The commission of a crime cannot be countenanced where there exists the possibility of some alternate means to alleviate the threatened greater harm.
Citing, LaFave and Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law, supra. See also, State v. Johnson, 183 N.W.2d at 543. In the present case, there clearly were alternative means, other than kidnapping, to alleviate the threatened greater harm. For this reason then, I would uphold the decision of the trial court.