Criminal Law, University of Minnesota

Full Answer Section

     

1. The defendant was faced with an imminent and unavoidable threat of serious bodily harm or death.
2. The defendant's actions were necessary to avoid the threat of harm.
3. There was no reasonable alternative to the defendant's actions.

In the case of Butler, the defendant claimed that he broke into the residence because he was being chased by a group of men who were threatening to kill him. The defendant testified that he feared for his life and that he believed that breaking into the residence was the only way to escape the threat of harm. The trial court denied the defendant's request to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity. The court found that the defendant had not met the burden of proof required to assert the defense. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Florida found that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's claim that he was faced with an imminent and unavoidable threat of serious bodily harm or death. The court also found that the defendant's actions were necessary to avoid the threat of harm and that there was no reasonable alternative to the defendant's actions. The court reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. The case of Butler is an important reminder that defendants have the right to assert the defense of necessity. The defense of necessity can be a valid defense to a variety of crimes, including trespass and criminal mischief. Implications of the Court's Decision The court's decision in Butler has several important implications. First, it reaffirms the right of defendants to assert the defense of necessity. Second, it clarifies the elements of the defense of necessity and the burden of proof that defendants must meet in order to successfully assert the defense. Third, it provides guidance to trial courts on how to instruct juries on the defense of necessity. The court's decision is also important because it recognizes that there are situations in which it is justified to break the law in order to avoid a greater harm. This is especially important in cases where the defendant is faced with an imminent and unavoidable threat of serious bodily harm or death. Conclusion The court's decision in Butler is a significant development in the law of the defense of necessity. The decision reaffirms the right of defendants to assert the defense, clarifies the elements of the defense, and provides guidance to trial courts on how to instruct juries on the defense. The decision also recognizes that there are situations in which it is justified to break the law in order to avoid a greater harm.  

Sample Solution

   

Yes, the Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the defendant's convictions for trespass and criminal mischief in the case of Butler v. Florida, No. 1D08-0958 (Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2009). The court found that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity.

The defense of necessity is a legal defense that allows a defendant to be acquitted of a crime if they committed the crime in order to avoid a greater harm. In order to successfully assert the defense of necessity, the defendant must prove the following elements: