Commonwealth v. Magadini
SJC-11874 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity when they present 'some evidence' on each of the defense's four elements. For a homeless individual charged with criminal trespass for seeking shelter from extreme cold, the 'no legal alternative' element is satisfied by showing that local, reasonable options were futile, without requiring the defendant to have exhausted every conceivable alternative or sought shelter outside their home community.
Facts:
- David Magadini was a 67-year-old homeless man living in his lifelong hometown of Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
- Magadini was subject to no trespass orders from three private properties: Barrington House, Castle Street, and SoCo Creamery.
- Between February and April 2014, on multiple days described as 'cold' or 'very cold', police found Magadini taking shelter in common areas near heaters at Barrington House and Castle Street.
- Magadini had previously stayed at the only local homeless shelter in 2007 but was told to leave and, on another occasion, was denied entry during a blizzard.
- For approximately seven years, Magadini had unsuccessfully attempted to rent an apartment in Great Barrington but could not overcome the financial barriers.
- Magadini lived year-round in an outdoor gazebo which he considered his home and did not have a driver's license to seek shelter in other towns.
- On June 10, 2014, Magadini entered SoCo Creamery, from which he was banned, and used the bathroom for ten to fifteen minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- David Magadini was tried by a jury in a Massachusetts trial court on seven counts of criminal trespass.
- The trial judge denied Magadini's request for a jury instruction on the common-law defense of necessity.
- The jury convicted Magadini on all seven counts.
- Magadini appealed his convictions.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, granted Magadini's 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 a homeless defendant, charged with criminal trespass for entering private buildings to escape extreme cold, present sufficient evidence of having 'no legal alternative' to be entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity when he has previously been excluded from the only local shelter and has been unsuccessful in finding local housing?
Opinions:
Majority - Hines, J.
Yes. A homeless defendant presents sufficient evidence of having 'no legal alternative' to warrant a necessity defense instruction by demonstrating that available local options for shelter were futile, and the law does not require him to prove he exhausted every conceivable alternative, such as seeking shelter in a different town. The defense of necessity requires the defendant to present 'some evidence' on four elements: (1) a clear and imminent danger, (2) a reasonable expectation the action will abate the danger, (3) no effective legal alternative, and (4) the legislature has not precluded the defense. Here, the extreme cold weather presented a clear and imminent danger for the six incidents from February to April. Magadini met his burden on the 'no legal alternative' element by testifying that he had been excluded from the only local shelter and had tried unsuccessfully for years to secure housing in his hometown. The court reasoned that requiring a defendant to continuously try a futile option or to seek shelter in a distant town, especially without transportation, sets an unreasonably high bar. However, for the June 10 incident where Magadini used a bathroom, there was no 'clear and imminent danger' to his life, so the necessity defense was not applicable to that charge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'no legal alternative' element of the necessity defense, particularly as it applies to the homeless population. By holding that a defendant need not exhaust every conceivable alternative, the court makes the defense more accessible for individuals in desperate circumstances. The ruling establishes an important precedent that juries, not judges, should weigh the 'competing harms' of a homeless person trespassing to survive versus the property owner's rights, provided the defendant meets the foundational evidentiary burden. This case signals a more compassionate and realistic approach within criminal law to the act of trespassing when committed for self-preservation against the elements.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Magadini