James Whitten Case Summary

James Whitten will likely fail to satisfy the requirements of the affirmative defense of necessity because he should not have reasonably believed his circumstances were life-threatening or sufficiently urgent. To claim the affirmative defense of necessity in Garner, the defendant must first prove that he “was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another,” and “[t]he urgency of the circumstances made it necessary for [him] to violate the law.” Gar. Stat. tit. 24, § 135(A)(1)-(2) (2011). The final element of the statute requires “[t]he defendant [to cease] the criminal conduct as soon as the necessity or apparent necessity for it end[s].” Id. § 135(A)(3).
The final component of the statute will not be disputed because it is conditional on the first two elements. If the threat was sufficient, the necessity created by the threat had not ceased; if the threat was insufficient, then the criminal conduct was unnecessary. Whitten will likely fail to assert the …show more content…
Brook, 221 P.4th at 421 (citing State v. Brownfield, 597 P.2d 1400, 1404 (Gar. 1984)). In Brownfield, the defendant received a call from a friend requesting urgent help; unfortunately, the defendant was subsequently unable to contact that friend by phone. Id. at 1402. The defendant had a suspended license so he attempted to reach what he believed was his endangered friend by other means of transportation including asking a friend and stopping at another acquaintance’s home—all to no avail. Id. The court held that the defendant’s extensive, fruitless efforts to find another driver meant that he adequately pursued reasonable alternatives. Id. at 1404. Thus, if a defendant makes a reasonable effort to find an alternative to the illegal act and cannot, it will inform the court’s determination of whether the circumstances were sufficiently urgent.