What is the test for the defense of necessity in an assault case?

Here, the facts presented do not support the defense of necessity. "[A] well-established central element [of the necessity defense] involves the emergency nature of the situation, i.e., the imminence of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent." (People v. Patrick (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 952, 960.) The danger appellant testified to was not immediate or imminent. To the contrary, appellant testified that the abuse he suffered had been going on for months and he had been trying to resolve some of the issues through complaints and inmate appeals. On the day in question, appellant said he was "fed up" and "tired." Evidence at trial was that the attack took place when the officers attempted to give him food through a port in his cell door.

Page 35