This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Defendant was discovered in the attic hiding because he didnt want to get shot. Issue: Whether the court erred in giving only the defense of compulsion, which they modified to include the concept of threat against another person, and should have given instead a threat of necessity Rule: Necessity allows the defendant off the hook because he had to choose between two evils, and had chosen the less of the two evils. Rational: Assuming the jury believes the testimony of the defendant, necessity and compulsion are slightly different in the fact that compulsion, the need to prove an imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm to another person, when necessity is just to avoid a injury greater than the injury which might result from his own conduct. Necessity would be more fitting for this situation. Holding: Reversed and remanded. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM LAW 110 taught by Professor Wade during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.
- Spring '11