What is the test for the defense of necessity?

The trial court must instruct on a defense requested by the defendant only when substantial evidence supports the defense. (People v. Petznick (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 663, 677.) In deciding whether the evidence warrants the requested instruction, the court

Page 7

should not judge the credibility of the evidence and should take it as true. (Ibid.) The court should resolve doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence in favor of the defendant. (Ibid.) "Even so, the test is not whether any evidence is presented, no matter how weak." (Ibid.) Instead, the court must instruct the jury "when there is evidence that 'deserve[s] consideration by the jury, i.e., "evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded"' that the specific facts supporting the instruction existed." (Ibid.) We review de novo the court's decision not to give the requested instruction. (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132.)

"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."'" (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 100.) The defendant bears the burden of showing "the existence of an emergency situation involving the imminence of greater harm that the illegal act seeks to prevent." (Ibid.)