Commonwealth v. Leno

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1993 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawNecessity defensenecessityjustificationimminent dangerlegal alternativesjury nullificationlegislative deference

Facts

The defendants operated a needle exchange program in Lynn, Massachusetts, exchanging clean needles and syringes for used ones to try to prevent the spread of AIDS. They were arrested and charged with multiple counts of unauthorized possession of hypodermic needles and syringes and with distribution of an instrument for the administration of a controlled substance. At trial, they presented expert testimony that needle exchange programs reduce needle sharing and save lives. The Legislature had considered but had not repealed the statutory prescription requirement for distribution and possession of hypodermic needles.

Issue

Whether the defendants were entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity for their unlawful possession and distribution of hypodermic needles as part of a needle exchange program intended to reduce the spread of AIDS.

Rule

A necessity instruction is warranted only if there is evidence that would permit a reasonable doubt whether the defendant's conduct was justified as a choice between evils. The defense is limited to circumstances in which the defendant faces a clear and imminent danger, can reasonably expect the conduct to be effective as the direct cause of abating that danger, has no effective legal alternative, and is not foreclosed by a clear and deliberate legislative choice regarding the values at issue. The defense does not apply to nonimminent, debatable, or long-term harms.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Dana Ruiz operates an unauthorized weekend program that gives unapproved respiratory masks to residents in a neighborhood with chronically high air pollution. She is charged under a statute barring distribution of that equipment without a license, and she offers studies showing the masks reduce long-term illness rates.

Is Dana most likely entitled to a jury instruction on necessity?

Explanation. A necessity instruction is warranted only if the evidence would permit a reasonable doubt that the unlawful conduct was justified as a choice between evils. Under the majority opinion, the defense is narrow and requires a clear and imminent danger, not a debatable, speculative, or long-term harm. Evidence that unlawful conduct may reduce disease or illness over time does not establish the immediacy required.