Commonwealth v. Capitolo
508 Pa. 372, 498 A.2d 806, 1985 Pa. LEXIS 464 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The justification defense of necessity is unavailable for criminal conduct intended to protest speculative, debatable, or non-imminent harms. To be entitled to a jury instruction on this defense, the defendant must first make a sufficient offer of proof to the trial court on every element of the defense, including that the harm was clear and imminent and that their actions could be reasonably expected to abate that harm.
Facts:
- The Shippingsport Power Plant in Beaver County was surrounded by a fence with a clearly visible 'No Trespass' sign.
- On July 15, 1979, Patricia Ann Capitolo and four others (Appellees) crawled under the fence to enter the property.
- At the time of the incident, the power plant was in the midst of a two-week shutdown.
- Once on the property, the Appellees sat down and held hands in protest.
- A plant security guard and a deputy sheriff instructed the Appellees to leave the property or face arrest.
- The Appellees refused to leave their seated position.
- Deputy Sheriffs then had to bodily remove the Appellees from the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Ann Capitolo and others (Appellees) were charged with criminal trespass.
- At a jury trial in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, Appellees sought to present a justification defense.
- The trial court rejected the offer of proof and refused to instruct the jury on the justification defense.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts against all Appellees.
- A Court en banc panel denied Appellees' post-trial motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.
- Appellees (as appellants) appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
- The Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed the judgments of sentence and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Commonwealth (as appellant) was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the defense of justification, as defined by 18 Pa.C.S. § 503, available to individuals charged with criminal trespass for protesting at a nuclear power plant to avoid the perceived, speculative harm of low-level radiation?
Opinions:
Majority - Papadakos, Justice
No. The defense of justification is not available because the harms the protestors sought to avoid were speculative and not imminent, and their actions were not reasonably calculated to be effective in abating those harms. The defense of necessity is based on a real emergency requiring immediate action, not a deliberate choice to protest a debatable or long-term danger. To invoke the defense, the actor must face a clear and imminent harm, and their conduct must be a necessary and effective means to avoid it. Here, the protestors trespassed on a plant that was already shut down to protest the speculative dangers of low-level radiation. Their actions had no reasonable chance of terminating or reducing the danger they perceived, making their trespass a calculated choice rather than an urgent necessity. The trial court correctly acted as a gatekeeper in determining that the protestors' offer of proof was insufficient as a matter of law to present the defense to the jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and narrows the application of the justification (or necessity) defense in Pennsylvania, particularly in the context of civil disobedience. The court establishes the trial judge's crucial gatekeeping role, requiring defendants to make a preliminary showing on all elements of the defense before evidence can be presented to the jury. By emphasizing that the danger must be 'clear and imminent' and not 'debatable or speculative,' the decision effectively precludes the use of the defense for protests against broad social or political policies, such as nuclear energy. This precedent makes it much more difficult for defendants to use the courtroom as a forum for debating the merits of the laws they are accused of breaking.
