Opinion
6:20-po-00754-HBK-1 6:20-po-00469-HBK-1
07-16-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN TRUNIK, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO RAISE NECESSITY DEFENSE AT TRIAL (DOC. NOS. 13, 10)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
On June 1, 2021, Defendant moved to permit a necessity defense at trial in Nos. 6:20-po-469 (Doc. No. 13) and 6:20-po-754 (Doc. No. 10). On June 21, 2020, Defendant was issued Violation Notice 9293278 for entering Yosemite National Park without a permit in violation of 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1) (No. 6:20-po-469) and Violation Notice 9293675 (No. 6:20-po-754) for engaging a permitted activity in violation of 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1). While admitting he exceeded the time limit in which to exit the Park and camped in Yosemite's Upper Pines Campground without a permit, Defendant contends he did so out of necessity to recover from heat exhaustion. (See generally Doc. Nos. 13, 10). The United States has not opposed or otherwise responded to Defendant's motion in either case. (See docket).
A defendant's violation can be excused if it was committed “to prevent an imminent harm which no available options could similarly prevent.” United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court “may preclude a necessity defense by granting a motion in limine.” United States v. Aguilar, 883 F.2d 662, 692 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Wrenn, 9 F. App'x 620, 620 (9th Cir. 2001). When the government moves to preclude a necessity defense, the defendant then must demonstrate “(1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and (4) that there were no other legal alternatives to violating the law.” United States v. Carter, 5 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 1993).
The United States has not moved to bar Defendant from presenting a necessity defense nor objected to Defendant's motions. (See docket). This is understandable given these cases will proceed to a bench trial. Motions in limine, whose purpose is to keep inadmissible evidence from reaching a jury, are “moot” and “generally superfluous” in bench trials. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court will thus permit Defendant to advance a necessity defense at trial in the connection with the above Violation Notices. The Court allowing Defendant to present a necessity defense is not an assessment of the defense's merits.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion to permit a necessity defense at trial in (Nos. 6:20-po-469 (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.
2. Defendant's motion to permit a necessity defense at trial in (Nos. 6:20-po-754 (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED
3. The Court schedules these matters for a Trial Confirmation Hearing for August 31, 2021 at 3:00 P.M.