People v. Gray
1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 300, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851, 150 Misc. 2d 852 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The justification defense of necessity may excuse a criminal act, such as disorderly conduct committed during civil disobedience, if the defendant reasonably believes the act is necessary to prevent a grave and imminent public harm after reasonably exhausting all available legal alternatives.
Facts:
- Defendants, members of the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, protested a New York City Department of Transportation (DOT) decision.
- The DOT, without public hearings, opened a Queensboro Bridge lane previously reserved for bicycles and pedestrians to vehicular traffic during evening rush hours.
- Defendants believed this policy would dangerously increase air pollution and create a hazardous situation for cyclists and pedestrians who continued using the roadway.
- Prior to their protest, defendants and their organization made numerous unsuccessful attempts to reverse the policy through legal means, including letter-writing, petitioning, and lobbying officials.
- On October 22, 1990, defendants participated in a demonstration on the Queensboro Bridge, where they stood in the roadway to block traffic.
- A police officer ordered the defendants to move, but they refused to comply until they were arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The People of the State of New York charged the defendants with disorderly conduct in the Criminal Court of the City of New York.
- Defendants entered into a stipulation with the District Attorney's office, admitting to the facts constituting the People's case.
- In exchange for the stipulation, the prosecution agreed not to object to the presentation of a necessity defense.
- A nonjury bench trial was held before the court.
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 necessity defense justify a disorderly conduct charge when defendants engage in an act of civil disobedience to protest a government transportation policy that they reasonably believe causes a grave and imminent harm to public health and safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Laura Safer-Espinoza, J.
Yes, the necessity defense justifies the disorderly conduct charge because the defendants reasonably believed their actions were necessary to prevent a grave and imminent public harm. The court found that the People failed to disprove the elements of the necessity defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's reasoning focused on a five-part analysis, applying a 'reasonable belief' standard to most elements: (1) Choice of Evils: The harm of preventing death and illness from air pollution and traffic accidents is far greater than the harm of disorderly conduct. (2) Grave and Imminent Harm: The defendants reasonably believed the harm was imminent, supported by expert testimony on NYC's non-compliance with EPA air standards and the daily danger to cyclists. Unlike abstract future threats, this harm was occurring every day. (3) No Legal Alternative: Defendants reasonably believed they had exhausted legal options after a long history of petitioning, lobbying, and writing letters to no avail. The court rejected the notion that legal alternatives are always presumed to exist and be effective in a democracy. (4) Causal Relationship: Defendants reasonably believed their actions could help avert the harm, based on their past successful campaigns where civil disobedience was the crucial final step in achieving policy change. (5) No Fault of Defendants: The harm was not of the defendants' own making. Because the prosecution did not disprove these elements, the defendants were acquitted.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant and rare successful use of the necessity defense in a civil disobedience context within New York. It liberalizes the application of the defense by emphasizing a defendant's 'reasonable belief' regarding imminence, causality, and the lack of alternatives, rather than applying a strict, objective standard in hindsight. The decision broadens the concept of 'imminent harm' to include ongoing, modern environmental dangers like air pollution, treating them as a present emergency. This precedent may encourage and provide a viable legal defense for defendants in future cases involving protests against environmental and public health hazards.
