People v. Kucavik

24 Citing cases

  1. People v. Michael S. (In re Michael S.)

    2015 Ill. App. 143333 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    ΒΆ 16 Ultimately, the necessity defense requires the trier of fact to determine whether the defendant's actions were objectively reasonable pursuant to the circumstances presented, and the defendant's reasonable belief has been held to encompass an objective factor. See People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill. App. 3d 176, 180 (2006). Clearly, the factors involved in determining the validity of a necessity defense inherently go to the weight and credibility of the evidence and, therefore, are properly determined by the trier of fact.

  2. Hoagland v. State, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 37, 52704 (2010)

    240 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2010)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that in a criminal jury trial, "a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of the case so long as there is evidence to support it . . . ."

    Although the necessity defense derives from common law, several states have codified the defense. See Reeve v. State, 764 P.2d 324, 325 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988); Bodner, 752 A.2d at 1174; People v. Kucavik, 854 N.E.2d 255, 259 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006); State v. Fee, 489 A.2d 606, 607 (N.H. 1985); Com. v. Capitolo, 498 A.2d 806, 808 (Pa. 1985). While the necessity defense has not been codified in Nevada, we have previously adopted a restricted common law definition of the elements when offered as a defense in an escape-from-custody crime.

  3. People v. Brown

    2023 Ill. App. 3d 210460 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    He also highlights cases in which our district has recognized that a defendant may raise the necessity defense to absolute liability offenses. See People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill.App.3d 176, 181 (3d Dist. 2006); People v. Gullens, 2017 IL App (3d) 160668, ΒΆ 20. Defendant further argues that the supreme court's own case law contradicts Jackson's pronouncement.

  4. People v. Manon

    2013 Ill. App. 3d 120361 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    However, the determination of whether a defendant has met the evidentiary minimum for an instruction on an affirmative defense is a matter of law that we review de novo. People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill. App. 3d 176 (2006). ΒΆ 15 The affirmative defense of necessity provides that conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity if defendant establishes that he: (1) is without blame in occasioning the situation; and (2) reasonably believed that his conduct was necessary to avoid a greater public or private injury than that which reasonably may have resulted from his conduct.

  5. People v. Aguster

    2013 Ill. App. 3d 110664 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    We disagree. ΒΆ 14 The affirmative defense of necessity provides that conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity if defendant establishes that he: (1) is without blame in occasioning the situation; and (2) reasonably believed that his conduct was necessary to avoid a greater public or private injury than that which reasonably may have resulted from his conduct. 720 ILCS 5/7-13 (West 2010); People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill. App. 3d 176 (2006). The necessity defense is viewed as involving the choice between two admitted evils where other optional courses of action are unavailable, and the conduct chosen by defendant must promote some higher value than the value of literal compliance with the law.

  6. State ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane Cnty. Dist. Court

    13 Wn. App. 2d 573 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Nevertheless, all courts, even federal courts, soften the element of "no legal alternative" with modifying adjectives such as "effective," "viable," "reasonable," "adequate," or "available." United States v. Bailey , 444 U.S. 394, 410, 100 S. Ct. 624, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980) ; Commonwealth v. Magadini , 474 Mass. 593, 52 N.E.3d 1041, 1047 (2016) ; Muller v. State , 196 P.3d 815, 816 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) ; People v. Kucavik , 367 Ill. App. 3d 176, 854 N.E.2d 255, 258, 304 Ill. Dec. 913 (2006) ; People v . Gray , 150 Misc. 2d 852, 853, 571 N.Y.S.2d 851 (1991) ; Andrews v. People , 800 P.2d 607, 610 (Colo. 1990).

  7. People v. Tebbens

    2015 Ill. App. 113424 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    The necessity defense requires the jury to determine whether a defendant's actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances presented, and defendant's reasonable belief has been held to encompass an objective factor. People v. Kucavic, 367 Ill. App. 3d 176, 180 (2006).

  8. Malden v. City of Waukegan, Illinois

    No. 04C2822 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct. 720 ILCS 5/7-13; see also People v. Kucavik, 854 N.E.2d 255, 259 (Ill. App. 2006). That is precisely Mr. Malden's allegation here: that he took the service vehicle only to avoid fatal injury at the hands of Officer Kirby. That allegation is flatly inconsistent with Mr. Malden's criminal conviction.

  9. People v. Farrell

    2024 Ill. App. 230149 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    Id. (citing People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill.App.3d 176, 179 (2006)). Once a defendant has raised an affirmative defense, the State must rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt.

  10. People v. Pool

    2021 Ill. App. 4th 200072 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    The court found defendant could have addressed her medical concerns by either reporting her symptoms to medical staff at the jail or by simply seeking medical attention when she was not required to be in custody subject to her periodic incarceration order. ΒΆ 20 Defendant relies on People v. Kucavik, 367 Ill.App.3d 176, 180, 854 N.E.2d 255, 259 (2006) to support her claim. In Kucavik, the court concluded "to require the defendant's conduct to be the 'sole' alternative to illegal conduct would render the language in the statute referring to the accused's reasonable belief meaningless."