State v. Crawford
1987 Md. LEXIS 197, 308 Md. 683, 521 A.2d 1193 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of necessity is available as a justification for the illegal possession of a handgun when an individual is faced with a sudden, imminent, and impending peril of death or serious bodily harm with no reasonable, legal alternative.
Facts:
- Leonard Crawford was in his apartment when intruders entered and fired a gun at him.
- Crawford attempted to call the police, but his phone service had been disconnected.
- During a physical struggle with one of the intruders, Crawford disarmed the man of his handgun.
- In the course of the struggle, Crawford fell out of his second-story apartment window, and the gun landed next to him.
- Lying injured on the ground, Crawford heard footsteps approaching and picked up the handgun, believing his assailants were pursuing him.
- The assailants continued to chase and shoot at Crawford outside the apartment building.
- Upon the arrival of police, Crawford eventually surrendered the weapon.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard Crawford was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (trial court) with unlawful possession of a handgun.
- At the conclusion of trial, defense counsel requested a jury instruction on the defense of necessity, which the trial judge refused to give.
- The jury convicted Crawford on the handgun possession charge.
- Crawford (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the instruction should have been given.
- The State of Maryland (appellant) was granted a writ of certiorari by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state's highest court) to review the decision.
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 common law defense of necessity apply to a charge of unlawful possession of a handgun under Maryland's handgun control statute, Art. 27, § 36B(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, J.
Yes, the defense of necessity may be a defense to the charge of unlawful possession of a handgun. Although Maryland's strict handgun control statute removed a prior exception for carrying a weapon against 'apprehended danger,' the legislature did not intend to abrogate the common law defense for situations of sudden, unforeseen, and life-threatening emergencies where there is no time to seek legal alternatives. The court established a five-part test: the defendant must face (1) present, imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury; (2) without having intentionally or recklessly placed himself in the situation; (3) with no reasonable, legal alternative; (4) the handgun must become available without preconceived design; and (5) the defendant must relinquish possession as soon as the necessity ends. As Crawford's testimony, if believed by a jury, could satisfy all elements of this test, he was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant common law exception to what is otherwise a strict liability criminal statute. It clarifies that while the legislature intended to prevent citizens from arming themselves in anticipation of potential danger, it did not eliminate the fundamental right to defend oneself in a sudden, life-threatening emergency. The case establishes a specific, multi-factor test for the necessity defense in the context of weapons possession, providing a clear framework for future defendants who claim they possessed a weapon only out of immediate, dire need. This precedent balances the state's strong interest in handgun control with an individual's right to self-preservation in extreme, unforeseen circumstances.
