Nelson v. State
597 P.2d 977 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of necessity requires the defendant to show that: (1) the act was done to prevent a significant evil, (2) there was no adequate legal alternative, and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. A conviction will be upheld, even with a potentially flawed jury instruction on this defense, if the defendant fails to present sufficient evidence to support these elements.
Facts:
- Dale Nelson's four-wheel drive truck became stuck in a marshy area off the Steese Highway.
- Nelson feared his truck might tip over in the soft ground.
- After an hour of trying to free the vehicle, Nelson and his companions entered a Highway Department Yard marked with 'no-trespassing' signs.
- Nelson took a dump truck from the yard without permission to free his vehicle, but the dump truck also became stuck.
- Nelson then took a front-end loader from the same yard, using it to free the dump truck and another person's car.
- While attempting to free his own truck, the front-end loader also became bogged down.
- During the several hours Nelson was attempting to free his truck, other people stopped and offered to call for a tow truck or state troopers.
- Nelson's unauthorized use of the equipment resulted in substantial damage to both the dump truck and the front-end loader.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale Nelson was convicted in district court (trial court) of reckless destruction of personal property and joyriding.
- Nelson appealed the conviction to the superior court (intermediate appellate court).
- The superior court affirmed the conviction.
- Nelson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 jury instruction on the defense of necessity constitute reversible error if it fails to explicitly state that the jury should evaluate the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant's position at the time of the act?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, Justice.
No. A potentially flawed jury instruction on the defense of necessity does not constitute reversible error where the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to warrant the defense in the first place. The court acknowledged that the necessity defense should be evaluated based on the defendant's reasonable belief at the time of the act, and the given instruction may have been inadequate in conveying this. However, any such error was harmless because Nelson failed to establish the essential elements of the necessity defense. First, the 'emergency' of his truck potentially tipping over was not a significant or dire evil, as evidenced by a companion later sleeping in the vehicle. Second, Nelson had adequate legal alternatives, as multiple people offered to call for assistance. Third, the harm caused—reckless destruction of expensive government equipment and joyriding—was disproportionate to the harm sought to be avoided—potential damage to his personal truck. Therefore, because Nelson could not have successfully asserted the defense under any proper instruction, the conviction is affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for successfully asserting the common law defense of necessity in criminal law. It establishes that the defense is reserved for situations involving a significant, imminent evil, not mere inconvenience or the risk of minor property damage. By deeming the instructional error 'harmless,' the court emphasizes that a defendant must first present a colorable claim meeting all substantive elements of the defense before challenges to the specific wording of jury instructions will be considered grounds for reversal. This holding makes it more difficult for defendants to use the necessity defense for crimes against property when lawful alternatives, even if less convenient, are available.
Unlock the full brief for Nelson v. State