Legal Opinion · Dissent

McGee v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 2007No. S-11611Published

1DissentMatthews, Justice

I agree with today's holding that the state had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McGee lacked any reasonable ground to believe his act was justified. I nonetheless dissent because the facts viewed most favorably to him did not support a necessity defense. The superior court's error as to the burden of proving the defense was therefore harmless.

The elements of necessity are: "1) the act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil; 2) there must have been no adequate alternative; 3) the harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the *1264harm avoided." 1 As…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. United States v. Nelson-RodriguezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003
  2. United States v. Charles Odell PerrinCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
  3. United States v. Roberto Cervantes-FloresCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
  4. Albert B. Brooke v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
  5. Baier v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1995

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

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

Powered by the Exa API