Commonwealth v. Leno
415 Mass. 835, 616 N.E.2d 453, 1993 Mass. LEXIS 449 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of necessity is not applicable to systematic violations of law aimed at preventing possible future harm when the danger is not clear and imminent, and when legal alternatives exist for addressing the policy issue, as such matters fall within the Legislature's purview.
Facts:
- Massachusetts law prohibited the distribution of hypodermic needles without a prescription.
- In September 1990, defendant Leno, a fifty-five-year-old grandfather in recovery from addiction, started a needle exchange program in Lynn after learning about the spread of AIDS among drug users.
- Defendant Robert Ingalls, a landscaper, joined Leno in operating the needle exchange program out of a sense of conscience.
- Leno and Ingalls legally purchased new sterile needles over-the-counter in Vermont.
- Every Wednesday evening in 1991, until their arrest on June 19, Leno and Ingalls operated their program on Union Street in Lynn, exchanging between 150 and 200 needles each night for fifty to sixty people, without charging for the service or materials.
- Leno and Ingalls also distributed information on drug treatment centers, the spread of AIDS, needle sterilization, condoms, bleach, and water alongside the clean needles.
- Expert testimony established that sharing needles transmits the AIDS virus, AIDS has a high mortality rate and no cure, and needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission without increasing drug addiction, while also bringing some addicts into treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Leno and Ingalls were charged with and convicted in the trial court of (1) unauthorized possession of instruments to administer controlled substances and (2) unlawful distribution of an instrument to administer controlled substances, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 27.
- The defendants appealed their convictions, challenging the trial judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts allowed the defendants’ application for direct appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the defense of necessity apply to defendants who systematically distribute hypodermic needles in violation of state law to combat the long-term spread of AIDS, where the danger is not immediate and the Legislature is actively considering the issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
No, the defense of necessity does not apply to the defendants' actions. The court reaffirmed the four elements required for the necessity defense: (1) clear and imminent danger, (2) effective action as a direct cause of abating the danger, (3) no legal alternative, and (4) the Legislature has not precluded the defense. The court found that the defendants failed to meet the first and third prongs. While AIDS is a serious societal problem, the danger it presented was a 'long-term hazard' and not a 'clear and imminent danger' in the context of the defendants' systematic violations of the law. The court emphasized that the prevention of possible future harm does not excuse a current systematic violation. Furthermore, legal alternatives existed for the defendants, such as petitioning the Legislature or utilizing the popular initiative process to change the law. The court stressed judicial deference to legislative judgments, stating that it is not the role of courts to judge the wisdom or effectiveness of statutes or to substitute their policy notions for those of a popularly elected Legislature.
Concurring - Liacos, C.J.
I agree with the majority that the judge was not required to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity. However, I reiterate my concern that evidence of necessity should not be excluded by a motion in limine once a sufficient offer of proof is made, allowing juries to fulfill their function of tempering strict rules of law with common sense judgment. Furthermore, the overwhelming and uncontroverted expert evidence presented at trial, which demonstrated the effectiveness of needle exchange programs in curbing the spread of AIDS, should indicate to the Legislature the importance of decriminalizing the possession and distribution of hypodermic syringes, acknowledging that 'Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the narrow scope of the necessity defense, particularly its 'clear and imminent danger' requirement, by ruling it inapplicable to ongoing, systematic violations of law, even when undertaken with compelling public health motives. It reinforces the principle of judicial deference to the legislative branch on matters of public policy and statutory reform, placing the onus on citizens to pursue legal and political avenues for change rather than self-help through unlawful means. The ruling highlights the judiciary's reluctance to override legislative judgment, even in the face of strong scientific evidence and apparent societal benefit, thereby limiting the utility of the necessity defense in challenging established statutory schemes addressing complex social issues.
