United States v. Perdomo-Espana
2008 WL 1700519, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8355, 522 F.3d 983 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of necessity must be evaluated under a purely objective standard, requiring a defendant to show that a reasonable person in their position would have believed that their criminal conduct was necessary to avoid a greater harm.
Facts:
- Juan Perdomo-Espana, who has Type 2 diabetes, was deported to Mexico after being released from a U.S. federal prison where he received insulin treatment.
- In Mexico, his insulin supply ran out, and the insulin he purchased in Tijuana was, in his belief, ineffective, causing his blood sugar to rise.
- Perdomo claimed he attempted to enter the United States legally at a port of entry to seek medical treatment but was turned away.
- Believing his blood sugar had reached a life-threatening level and that adequate medical care was unavailable in Tijuana, Perdomo crossed the border illegally.
- On March 21, 2006, a U.S. border patrol officer found Perdomo hiding in brush near the border, wearing dark clothing and carrying $598 (USD) and 155 Mexican pesos.
- After his arrest, an emergency room physician evaluated Perdomo, finding his blood sugar level elevated but classifying him as a 'non-urgent' patient.
- The physician testified that Perdomo was not in imminent risk of serious harm and that someone with his funds could have obtained effective medical treatment in Tijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Perdomo-Espana was charged with one count of illegal entry into the United States in a federal district court.
- During pre-trial hearings, Perdomo requested to present a necessity defense, and the government moved to preclude it.
- The district court reserved its ruling and allowed Perdomo to testify before the jury about his reasons for entering the country.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the district court denied Perdomo's request that the jury be instructed on the defense of necessity.
- The jury found Perdomo guilty.
- The district court denied Perdomo's motion for a new trial.
- Perdomo (appellant) appealed the district court’s denial of his requested jury instruction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 the affirmative defense of necessity require an objective analysis of the defendant's actions and beliefs, or a subjective one based on the defendant's personal state of mind?
Opinions:
Majority - Gould, Circuit Judge
Yes, the defense of necessity requires an objective analysis. The test for entitlement to a defense of necessity is objective, meaning the defendant’s belief that their actions were necessary must be reasonable from the perspective of an ordinary person. The court’s precedent, particularly in cases like United States v. Schoon, has consistently implied a reasonableness requirement, stating that 'the law could not function were people allowed to rely on their subjective beliefs and value judgments in determining which harms justified the taking of criminal action.' The necessity defense is utilitarian, justifying a crime only where the social benefits of the act outweigh the social costs, which requires an objective assessment. Applying this standard, Perdomo failed to establish the required elements because, from an objective standpoint, he was not in imminent harm, legal alternatives for medical treatment were available in Mexico, and his clandestine entry was not a reasonable way to obtain medical aid. Therefore, the district court correctly denied his request for a jury instruction on the defense.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the standard for the necessity defense in the Ninth Circuit as strictly objective, rejecting any consideration of a defendant's subjective, but unreasonable, beliefs. By explicitly adding a 'reasonableness' requirement to all four prongs of the necessity test, the court makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to successfully raise this defense. The ruling emphasizes that the defense is not a loophole for those who personally feel justified in breaking the law; rather, it requires objective evidence that a reasonable person would have found no other legal alternative to avert a greater, imminent harm. This sets a high bar, particularly in illegal reentry cases where defendants often claim dire circumstances in their home country.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Perdomo-Espana