What is the defense of necessity in the context of a murder case?

"The defense of necessity generally recognizes that '"the harm or evil sought to be avoided by [the defendant's] conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged."' [Citation.] The defendant, who must have possessed a reasonable belief that his or her action was justified, bears the burden of proffering evidence of the existence of an emergency situation involving the imminence of greater harm that the illegal act seeks to prevent. [Citations.] . . . '[I]t is not acceptable for a defendant to decide that it is necessary to kill an innocent person in order that he [or she] may live, particularly where, as here, [the defendant]'s alleged fear related to some future danger.'" (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 100.)

The defense of necessity is not codified in California. (People v. Health (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 892, 900.) "'Common law historically distinguished between the defenses of duress and necessity. Duress was said to excuse criminal conduct where the actor was under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, which threat caused the actor to engage in conduct violating the literal terms of the criminal law. While the defense of duress covered the situation where the coercion had its source in the actions of other human beings, the defense of necessity, or choice of evils, traditionally

Page 16