Legal Opinion

United States v. Hill

District Court, N.D. Florida

Decided September 28, 1994No. 94-03118-RVPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

VINSON, District Judge.

The government has moved, in limine, to prevent the defendant from introducing any evidence of the defense of “necessity” or “justification.” (doc. 17) The defendant has not filed any response. For the reasons stated, the motion is GRANTED.

I. ANALYSIS

The defense variously referred to as “necessity” or “justification” is an affirmative defense which essentially excuses otherwise criminal conduct which is committed for the purpose of preventing an imminent greater harm. See United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 409-410, 100 S.Ct. 624, 634, 62 L.Ed.2d 575, 590…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. United States v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. United States v. Arthur OrtizCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
  5. United States v. AguilarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hoagland v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API