Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:3-2 – Necessity and other justifications in general

New Jersey’s Law on Necessity and Other Legal Defenses

New Jersey law, like the law in other states, recognizes certain situations where breaking the law may be justified or excused. Section 2C:3-2 of New Jersey’s criminal code deals with “necessity” and other general justifications and excuses for criminal conduct. This section gives people accused of crimes some potential defenses if they can show their conduct was necessary or justified in the circumstances.

The Necessity Defense

The main justification covered by Section 2C:3-2 is called the “necessity” defense. This applies when a person violates the law in order to avoid a greater evil or harm.For example, let’s say a huge storm caused massive flooding, and the only way for a person to reach and save someone from drowning was to trespass on private property. Or imagine if someone stole a car because it was the only way to rush an injured person to the hospital in a life-or-death emergency. In cases like these, the accused person can argue that their illegal actions were necessary to prevent something much worse from happening.The law sets a high bar for the necessity defense. First, the defendant has to show they had no reasonable alternative that would have avoided both the illegal act and the greater harm. So in the flooding example, if there was a public bridge the person could have used instead of trespassing, the necessity defense would fail.Second, the defendant has to show the harm they sought to avoid was imminent and left no time to use legal methods. This prevents people from claiming necessity when they had time to call the authorities, for instance.Finally, the defendant must show the illegal act was directly aimed at preventing the greater harm, and that the harm avoided outweighed the harm caused by breaking the law. So stealing to prevent financial hardship won’t qualify, but stealing food to prevent starvation might.Necessity can justify breaking most laws, even serious felonies, but usually not laws against intentionally injuring or killing someone. Defendants also can’t claim necessity if they intentionally or recklessly placed themselves in the situation requiring them to break the law.

Other Justification Defenses

Besides necessity, Section 2C:3-2 also recognizes other justification defenses like:

• Self-Defense: Using reasonable force to defend yourself or others against unlawful force. This can justify assault or even homicide in response to a credible threat.
• Defense of Property: Using reasonable force to prevent trespass or theft of property. Deadly force is only justified in limited cases like burglary.
• Law Enforcement Authority: Police officers can commit justified acts like using force, restraining people, or seizing property when properly exercising their duties.
• Parental Authority: Parents, guardians, teachers, and others entrusted with care of minors can use reasonable supervision and discipline.
• Authority of Court Officers: Acts like contempt, warrantless searches, and use of force may be justified for bailiffs, probation officers, and others carrying out court orders.
• Authority of Federal Law: Federal agents can break state laws if authorized by federal law.
• Mistake of Law: Acting based on a reasonable misunderstanding of the law can be a defense.
• Mistake of Fact: Misunderstanding relevant facts can justify illegal conduct if the mistake was reasonable.
• Duress: Committing a crime because of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. This is similar to necessity but involves threats from other people rather than general circumstances.
• Consent: Victims can consent to acts like battery, theft, or trespassing to justify them. But consent doesn’t justify crimes like murder.

Burden of Proof

For all these justification defenses, the burden is on the defendant to prove the elements by a preponderance of evidence. So the defendant has to show it’s more likely than not that their actions were justified. Prosecutors don’t have to disprove justification – defendants must actively prove it.Justification defenses allow some flexibility for people to do illegal things in extenuating circumstances. But the bar is high, so these defenses often fail. Defendants need experienced criminal attorneys to argue justification defenses persuasively. The intricacies of justification law underline why it’s so important to consult an attorney rather than representing yourself if charged with a crime.