This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
State v. Warshow, Supreme Court of Vermont, 410 A.2d 1000 (1980), is a criminal case that set forth conditions for a defense of necessity in civil disobedience during political protests.[1] Four requirements were described that apply to other necessity defenses.
State v. Warshow | |
---|---|
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Full case name | State of Vermont v. John Warshow et al. |
Decided | December 21, 1979 |
Citation | 410 A.2d 1000 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Albert W. Barney Jr., Rudolph J. Daley, Robert W. Larrow, Franklin S. Billings Jr., William C. Hill |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Barney |
Concurrence | Hill |
Dissent | Billings |
The court wrote:
- There must be a situation of emergency arising without fault on the part of the actor concerned;
- this emergency must be so imminent and compelling as to raise a reasonable expectation of harm, either directly to the actor or upon those he was protecting;
- this emergency must present no reasonable opportunity to avoid the injury without doing the criminal act;
- the injury impending from the emergency must be of sufficient seriousness to outmeasure the criminal wrong.
References
edit- ^ Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business; John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder, ISBN 978-1-4548-0698-1, [1]