State v. Anthuber
201 Wis. 2d 512, 549 N.W.2d 477, 1996 Wisc. App. LEXIS 427 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot successfully assert the necessity defense for illegal drug use when the underlying addiction that compelled the act resulted from the defendant's conscious decision to begin using illegal drugs, as such an addiction does not constitute a 'natural physical force' under the relevant statute.
Facts:
- In March 1993, Richard Anthuber was a resident at a halfway house, on parole for a forgery conviction, and participating in a methadone treatment program.
- Anthuber left the halfway house because he feared parole revocation due to the DOC suspecting him of illegal drug use.
- Anthuber, through counsel, negotiated to surrender to authorities by June 22, 1993, having also arranged to participate in a different methadone treatment and detoxification program.
- On June 10, 1993, the DOC took Anthuber into custody earlier than expected based on his suspected drug use from March.
- While at Milwaukee County Jail, Anthuber was initially allowed methadone but was informed his dosage would be rapidly decreased and treatment would end by July, despite his sentence extending through October.
- The DOC offered Anthuber continued methadone treatment for the entire term of his sanction if he agreed to transfer to the Racine Correctional Institution.
- Upon transfer to Racine, Anthuber was not provided methadone due to an acknowledged 'mistake' by DOC personnel, as the facility was not certified to administer it.
- On August 7, 1993, a prison guard discovered Anthuber injecting heroin into his foot in his cell.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed charges against Richard Anthuber in February 1994.
- At a bench trial, the trial court rejected Anthuber's various defenses and found him guilty of heroin possession, sentencing him to one year of probation.
- Anthuber appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
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 defendant's self-induced heroin addiction, and the subsequent withdrawal symptoms experienced due to the Department of Corrections' (DOC) failure to provide promised methadone treatment, constitute a 'natural physical force' sufficient to invoke the necessity defense for illegal drug possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No, a defendant's self-induced heroin addiction and subsequent withdrawal symptoms do not constitute a 'natural physical force' necessary for a necessity defense when the addiction originates from the defendant's conscious choice to use illegal drugs. The court applied the four-element necessity defense test from State v. Olsen, focusing on the first element: whether the defendant acted under pressure from 'natural physical forces.' It clarified that for a force to be considered 'natural physical,' it must not have been set in motion by the defendant's conscious activity, and there must be no evidence that the defendant had control over the initial choice to set that force in motion. Since Anthuber's addiction resulted from his conscious decision to start using heroin, and he provided no evidence that he lacked control over this initial choice, his addiction, despite the severe withdrawal, was not a 'natural physical force' for the purposes of the defense. The court acknowledged the DOC's mistake in failing to provide methadone but found this did not transform a self-induced condition into a 'natural physical force' excusing illegal drug use. The court also rejected Anthuber's claims of outrageous government conduct, deeming the DOC's actions an 'administrative blunder' rather than conduct egregious enough to bar prosecution, and double jeopardy, citing precedent (State v. Fonder) that administrative prison sanctions do not preclude subsequent criminal prosecution for the same conduct.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the applicability of the necessity defense, particularly in the context of self-induced conditions like drug addiction. It establishes a strict interpretation of 'natural physical force,' requiring that the compelling force not originate from the defendant's conscious choices. This ruling emphasizes personal responsibility for the genesis of one's condition, even when subsequent circumstances (like the DOC's error) worsen the situation. It means that defendants cannot typically escape criminal liability for acts stemming from addictions they consciously initiated. The decision reinforces the high bar for claims of 'outrageous government conduct' and clarifies that prison disciplinary actions generally do not trigger double jeopardy protections against criminal charges.
