CRIM LAW I
11.11.09
Pimentel Quotes of the day
 “Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a
lifetime”
 “Give a man a fire and warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for a
lifetime”
Justification Defenses
 Self-defense
 Defense of others
 Defenseof property/habitation
 Law enforcement defenses
 Necessity
o Catch-all provision
o Also called “lesser-evils” defense
o People v. Fontes (p.595)
 PH
 ISSUE
 FACTS
  argues that he was acting for the greater good by forging
a check to buy food for starving children
 HOLDING
 STATUTE
 REASON
NECESSITY
 Nowhere defined
 Approximated here:
o Lesser evil
 Reasonable belief based on foreseeable circumstances
 NOT already decided by legislature
 EX: Abortion clinic bombed to prevent the death of unborn
fetuses
 Imminency of harm
 No time to seek legal alternative
 Causal element- act will abate the harm
 Blamelessness of actor (many courts)
 Exceptions
o Limited to natural emergencies (historically)
 As opposed to human-made crises
o Excludes homicide (?)
 Regina v. Dudley & Stephens
 Eating of fellow sailor to save self
o Limited to protection of persons and property
 Not for harm to reputation
 Not for other economic interests
 Geljack v. State
 United States v. Maxwell
 Necessity & Civil Disobedience
o Direct civil disobedience (rarely exists)
 You are disobeying the law you are protesting
 EX: marijuana laws protesting unjustness of law by
smoking outside
o Indirect civil disobedience (consistently rejected)
 Harm is not imminent
 Protest doesn’t directly abate the danger
 Legal alternative exist (e.g. the political process)
 Legislature has already struck the balance
o Advocates of “political necessity” say
 Allows a forum for otherwise stifled minority
 Good to let juries weigh in an “nullify”
o MPC
 Necessity is called “choice of evils”
 Justification under the MPC
 Threatened harm need not be imminent
 Commentary makes clear that it IS available for homicide
DURESS
 COMMON LAW (beliefs as to threats must be reasonable)
o  will be acquitted of an offense other than murder if she acted because
 another person unlawfully threatens imminent deadly force
otherwise,
 there was no reasonable escape, and
 she is not at fault in exposing herself to the threat
 Bates v. Commonwealth
o Justification or excuse?
o Does it matter?
 MPC
o Excuse, not justification
o Threatened harm need not be
 Deadly, or
 Imminent (past force)
o Uses “person of reasonable firmness” standard
o Duress defense is available for homicide
o May apply when coercion requires committing a crime other than
coerced one

EX: prison escapes
NECESSITY
 Justification defense
 Natural causes (historically)
 Applies only to lesser evil
 No prosecution because no crime
 To save person or property
DURESS
 Excuse defense (mostly)
 Human unlawful threat
 May apply to equal or greater evil
 Coercer should be prosecuted
 To save person only (to prevent
bodily harm)
ENTRAPMENT
 People v. Maffett
 Subjective test (Majority Rule)
o If the government implants in an innocent person the “disposition to
commit” the offense and induces its commission
 Contract “innocent person” with “unwary criminal”
o A person is “predisposed” if when first approached, she is ready and
willing to commit the crime
 If the government merely presents and opportunity
 This is not entrapment
 Objective test
o Police conduct falls below standards of the proper use of government
power