United States v. Fraser
647 F.3d 1242, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15822, 2011 WL 3276238 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant cannot establish the 'no reasonable lawful alternative' element of a necessity defense to a federal firearm possession charge if they had sufficient time and opportunity to contact law enforcement but failed to do so, even if the failure was based on a subjective distrust of the police.
Facts:
- James Fraser and Milton Brown had an argument at Fraser's home.
- The argument concluded with Brown threatening to kill Fraser and his family, stating he would return to do so.
- Fraser took his children to their grandparents' house for safety.
- Fraser then met a friend and traded cocaine for a rifle.
- Fraser called another friend, Wayne Fernandez, who came to Fraser's residence armed with a semi-automatic pistol.
- Fraser loaded the borrowed rifle and waited for Brown to return.
- Brown returned to the house, carrying a gun.
- When Brown entered the house, Fraser shot him multiple times, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- The federal government charged James Fraser in U.S. District Court with being a felon in possession of a firearm and other related offenses.
- The government filed a motion in limine to prohibit Fraser from introducing evidence of the shooting of Milton Brown to support a necessity defense.
- The district court granted the government's motion in limine, excluding the evidence.
- Fraser entered into a conditional plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts while reserving his right to appeal the district court's in limine ruling.
- The district court accepted the plea and sentenced Fraser.
- Fraser (appellant) appealed the district court's evidentiary ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
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 establish the 'no reasonable lawful alternative' element of a necessity defense to a federal felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge when, after being threatened, he has sufficient time to contact law enforcement but instead illegally acquires a firearm, citing a general distrust of the police as his reason for not seeking their help?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorsuch, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant fails to establish the 'no reasonable lawful alternative' element of a necessity defense when he neglects to pursue an available legal option, such as contacting the police, before resorting to illegal self-help. The court assumed, for the sake of argument, that a necessity defense is available for a § 922(g)(1) charge. However, a core element of that defense is the absence of any reasonable lawful alternative. The record shows that Fraser had ample time between Brown's threat and his return to take several actions, including driving his children to safety, acquiring a rifle, and meeting an armed friend. This same period of time provided a clear, lawful alternative: calling the police. A defendant's subjective or general distrust of law enforcement is insufficient as a matter of law to excuse the failure to at least attempt to seek their assistance before violating federal law. The rule of law requires that legal avenues be exhausted before illegal ones can be justified as necessary.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the practical availability of the necessity defense for defendants charged under § 922(g)(1). By establishing an objective standard for the 'no reasonable lawful alternative' element, the court makes it clear that a defendant's personal beliefs about the effectiveness of law enforcement are legally irrelevant. The ruling reinforces the principle that individuals must exhaust legal channels for protection before they can justify taking the law into their own hands. For future cases, this precedent creates a high evidentiary bar, requiring defendants to demonstrate they actually tried and failed to get help through legal means, rather than simply believing such attempts would be futile.
