United States Ninth Circuit

The test for entitlement to a defense of necessity is objective, as opposed to subjective. The defendant must establish that a reasonable jury could conclude that: 1) he was faced with a choice of evils and reasonably chose the lesser evil; 2) he reasonably acted to prevent imminent harm; 3) he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and 4) he reasonably believed there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/14/2008
• Published 04/14/2008

Judges

• GOULD, Circuit Judge:, Before:  KIM McLANE WARDLAW, RONALD M. GOULD, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Elizabeth A. Missakian, San Diego, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Karen P. Hewitt, United States Attorney, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Chief, Appellate Section, Criminal Division, and Steven De Salvo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.