California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCCriminal LawMedium
An individual, while hiking in a remote wilderness area, becomes disoriented and lost. After several days without food, facing imminent starvation, he breaks into a deserted cabin and consumes the food supplies he finds there. He leaves a note promising to pay for the food and repair any damage. Which of the following defenses is most likely available to the individual for breaking into the cabin and taking food?
- ADuress
- BIntoxication
- CNecessity
- DInsanity
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Necessity
The defense of necessity (or choice of evils) applies when a person commits a crime to avoid a greater harm. Here, the individual faced imminent starvation (a greater harm) and broke into the cabin to obtain food, which is a lesser harm. This fits the elements of necessity.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Duress involves being compelled to act by another person's threats, not natural forces.
- B. Intoxication is not relevant to the scenario described.
- D. Insanity requires a severe mental disease or defect, not just being lost and starving.
Necessity (Criminal)
A defense that justifies an otherwise criminal act if it was committed to prevent a greater harm, and there was no reasonable legal alternative.
- Involves natural forces or circumstances, not human threats.
- Harm avoided must be greater than harm caused.
- Requires a reasonable belief in the necessity of the action.
Memory trick: Desperate times, desperate measures, when nature calls.