What is the test for the necessity defense?

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.] (People v. Coffman & Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 100, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) To justify an instruction on the defense of necessity, there must be evidence sufficient to establish that defendant violated the law (1) to prevent a significant evil, (2) with no adequate alternative, (3) without creating a greater danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief in the necessity, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable, and (6) under circumstances in which he did not substantially contribute to the emergency. (People v. Pepper (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1035, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 877 [deciding factual predicate of defendant's necessity defense insufficient as a matter of law]; People v. Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1164, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 322 [necessity defense is very limited and represents a policy decision not to punish an individual despite proof of the crime ].) There was no evidence that defendant sought to prevent any imminent harm or that he faced any emergency situation when he killed Facundo.¹⁴

3. Trial court's refusal to admit evidence that defendant's cousin had been killed by an abusive boyfriend