What is the legal test for the defense of necessity?

Necessity and duress are distinct defenses. (People v. Heath, supra, 207 Cal.App.3d at pp. 899-900.) Duress requires an imminent danger and negates the intent element of the crime. (Id. at p. 900.) By contrast, necessity "is founded upon public policy and provides a justification [for the crime] distinct from the elements required to prove the crime. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 900-901.) "The defense involves a determination that the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 901.) "Unlike duress, the threatened harm is in the immediate future, which contemplates the defendant having time to balance alternative courses of conduct. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) "To justify an instruction on the defense of necessity, a defendant must present evidence sufficient to establish that she violated the law (1) to prevent a

Page 14

significant and imminent evil, (2) with no reasonable legal alternative, (3) without creating a greater danger than the one avoided, (4) with a good faith belief that the criminal act was necessary to prevent the greater harm, (5) with such belief being objectively reasonable, and (6) under circumstances in which she did not substantially contribute to the emergency. [Citations.]" (People v. Kearns (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1135.)