United States v. Ridner
512 F.3d 846 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To successfully assert a necessity defense to a felon-in-possession charge, a defendant must proffer sufficient evidence on all elements of the defense, including that the threat of harm was present and imminent, and that possession of the contraband was not maintained for any longer than absolutely necessary.
Facts:
- Scotty Ridner's brother, Freddy Ridner, who had a history of suicide attempts, was allegedly acting suicidal and talking about killing himself.
- While on a porch with Scotty, Freddy possessed three shotgun shells.
- Freddy dropped the shells, and Scotty picked them up and put them in his pocket, allegedly to prevent Freddy from harming himself.
- Scotty was aware that Freddy did not possess a firearm at the residence; the closest known gun was at a pawnshop.
- Scotty testified that by the time police arrived, Freddy's mood had improved and he was laughing.
- When police officers arrived to execute an arrest warrant for Scotty, he ran through the house and fled.
- Officers pursued Scotty for a short distance before apprehending him.
- Upon searching Scotty after his arrest, officers found the three rounds of shotgun ammunition in his pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Scotty Ridner in federal district court for being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition.
- Prior to trial, the United States filed a motion in limine to prevent Ridner from presenting a necessity defense.
- The district court conducted a hearing and granted the government's motion, ruling that Ridner had failed to establish a prima facie case for the defense.
- Following the adverse ruling, Ridner entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the court's pre-trial order.
- Ridner (appellant) appealed the district court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 charged as a felon-in-possession of ammunition establish a prima facie case for a necessity defense when the alleged threat of suicide was not imminent due to the lack of a nearby firearm, and the defendant fled from police while still in possession of the ammunition?
Opinions:
Majority - Merritt, Circuit Judge
No. A defendant fails to establish a prima facie case for a necessity defense if the evidence does not support a finding that the threat was imminent and that possession was relinquished at the first available opportunity. The court applied the five-factor test from United States v. Singleton and found that Ridner's proffer failed on at least two elements. First, the threat was not imminent. For a threat to be imminent, the harm must be immediate. Here, even if Freddy were suicidal, he had no firearm available to use with the ammunition, as the closest known gun was at a pawnshop. A potential, future threat of harm is insufficient to satisfy this element. Second, Ridner did not maintain possession for only the period absolutely necessary. When police arrived, the threat had arguably subsided as Freddy's mood improved, and more importantly, Ridner had a legal alternative: he could have surrendered the ammunition to the officers and explained the situation. Instead, he fled from the police with the ammunition in his pocket, demonstrating an intent to escape arrest rather than merely to prevent harm, thus possessing the ammunition longer than was necessary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the narrow construction of the necessity defense in the context of felon-in-possession charges. It clarifies that the imminence requirement demands an immediate, tangible threat, not a generalized or future possibility of harm. Furthermore, the case underscores the critical importance of a defendant's conduct upon encountering law enforcement. By holding that fleeing with contraband instead of turning it over to police vitiates the defense, the court makes it exceedingly difficult for defendants to prevail if their actions suggest any motive other than the prevention of immediate harm.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Ridner