Necessity Defense difficult to prove but there for you in so

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

Necessity Defense difficult to prove but there for you in so

Postby Alan K » Fri Jan 18, 2002 6:05 pm

I am reporting this case only because it is available and may be useful to some people who perform protective or public service, and to anyone faced with a problem which could save life or limb but expose you.

Example, one of your best friends is as drunk as a skunk and after your constant pleading for his car keys, he bolts for the parking lot. You tackle him and take away his keys but his arm is broken in the struggle. He is so drunk he can only curse you and accuse you of assault. LEO on the scene charges you with assault and battery.

Here is the case and followed by another scenario:

A defendant who was convicted of assault and battery before a six-person jury, in Fitchburg District Court, appealed on the ground that he was entitled to instructions to the jury on the law of the defense of necessity.

A six person jury in Fitchburg District Court found the defendant Casey O’Kane, guilty of assault and battery on his girlfriend, April Lepage. He appeals from the conviction.

Defendant’s defense at the trial argued lack of criminal intent, that what the Commonwealth characterized as his intention to punch April in the face was in fact his slapping her cheeks in an attempt to bring her to consciousness from what he took to be an overdose of drugs. The jury by its verdict rejected the defendant’s version. The defendant at the trial had not requested an instruction on the defense of necessity. which in some narrow circumstances allows a person to commit a breach of the law in order to respond to an exigent danger. Defendant argues. that his oversight should be given and that he should be accorded a new trial to avert as he says “a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice’ and cites the case of Commonwealth v. Freeman 352 Mass. 726.

The appeals court replied “the necessity defense is available only under very limited circumstances (per Liacos, J dissenting in another cited Massachusetts case.. The appeals court further says the Supreme Judicial Court, described these circumstances in terms of the following three essentials, each of which must be satisfied in order to achieve the defense: (1) the defendant is faced with a clear and imminent danger, not one which is debatable or speculative; (2) the defendant can reasonably expect that his action will be effective as the direct cause of abating the danger; (3) there is no legal alternative which will be effective in abating the danger.

The court went on to say that (citing a case) we are taught that a judge should instruct the jury on necessity only if the defendant has presented some evidence on each element of the defense. In other words the instruction should not be given unless the evidence supports at least a reasonable doubt whether the crime was justified was justified by necessity..

The court further went on to say in effect that there was a failure to meet the test in this case and that his action of slapping her face based on what he believed was her ingestion of Xanax was better met by calling 911 or running to the Police Station which was about a block away

The facts which went before the jury included pictures of her bruised face. The court went into great detail of failure to establish a genuine defense on the known facts and that his defense was a home spun defense was all without merit, that no miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the strict adherence to the tests. No new trial was ordered.

The defense by necessity issue is certainly not new; the reason I reported it is make all aware that such a defense is available if the strict standards are met.

I will supply one scenario where this defense might exist, perhaps some of you may do a better job.

Joe Karateka is at a concert where his job is security and to protect the vocal artist on the stage.
In his duties of observing the crowd, and as the vocalist is on the stage ready to perform, Joe sees the glitter of a gun barrel, shouts “Gun!” and tackles the performer just a split second before the gun goes off. No persons are hit by the round, but the vocalist is injured.
The alleged assassin is apprehended. He was a 12 year old with an air rifle. Joe is charged with assault and battery.

Alan K
Alan K
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Framingham, MA USA

Necessity Defense difficult to prove but there for you in so

Postby Van Canna » Sun Jan 20, 2002 7:14 pm


Laird posted this on my forum: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't know if any of you have encountered the I don't ever give up attacker or not.
This individual is unbalanced and determined. The goal is to injure and defeat you no matter how badly beaten in the fight.
Knock them down, bloody them, they keep getting up and coming back for more. Put them in a submission hold tell them it's over, I don't want to hurt you. You let them go and they come at you again. You realize the only thing that will stop this nut job is a KO or a broken knee. I don't know how this withdraw law would apply. Must you run away?
Don't we have the right to stand our ground? If you tell the aggressor look just leave me alone I don't want any trouble. I came here for a good time. I'll go over here.
The guy keeps following you pressing you to engage. Does the law require you to keep leaving the area?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And how about this: Consider this from [Chicago sun times__ 11-23-01]_
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
A west side resident shot and killed an intruder in his home when the man stormed into his bedroom and demanded to see part of his wife’s anatomy: “ he said to the woman, ‘ show me your c***,’ and at that point the husband fired, said violent crime detective Mike Miller.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Van Canna
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 50435
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Necessity Defense difficult to prove but there for you in so

Postby Alan K » Tue Jan 22, 2002 3:19 pm

Van sensei:

Lairds post is a perfect example reciting the ongoing need to defend an onslaught of violence, which had no retreat or break which could realistically give the defender a chance to break off the engagement or retreat without fear of harm.

You must retreat but this can only be examined in the light of what was going on at the time, and should not be measured retrospetively by arm chair quaterbacks.

In another post I mentioned Chief Justice Holmes remarks in a 1921 SCOTUS decision, stating that action must be measured in the light of a "raised blade".

Laird desribes the conduct the the person needing to be subdued as a never ending attacker who would probably kill you if you turned your back to retreat.

The quoted facts from the Chicago Sun Times, applied to Massachusetts Law would invoke the Mass. version of the Castle Law which in Massachusetts does not require the occupant to retreat from an unprivileged invasion, would permit intervention in protection of his family and self. However the doctrine or standard of reasonable force still applies. On the stated facts there were no weapons shown, just a verbal command. Breaking and entering in the night time is a specific felony alone which permits a person to quel. Yet our perspective in this case on the given facts, only permits the use of necessary and reasonable force, and probably a duty to order the offender to cease and raise his hands, perhaps to shoot, but not to use lethal force.

I suppose my answer would be different if I knew all the facts.

Prosecutors would probably go manslaughter 2 (involuntary) at best. If the people were old and feeble, or in poor health or other extenuating circumstances are revealed, they might justly be defending the castle.

Alan K
Alan K
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Framingham, MA USA

Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests