Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320 (2026)
Justification: Necessity
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.81.320. Justification: Necessity.
(a) Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by common law when
(1) neither this title nor any other statute defining the offense provides exemptions or defenses dealing with the justification of necessity in the specific situation involved; and
(2) a legislative intent to exclude the justification of necessity does not otherwise plainly appear.
(b) The justification specified in (a) of this section is an affirmative defense.
(a) Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by common law when
(1) neither this title nor any other statute defining the offense provides exemptions or defenses dealing with the justification of necessity in the specific situation involved; and
(2) a legislative intent to exclude the justification of necessity does not otherwise plainly appear.
(b) The justification specified in (a) of this section is an affirmative defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: McGee v. State, 162 P.3d 1251 (Alaska 2007).
McGee v. State, 162 P.3d 1251 (Alaska 2007). “" The state's position overlooks the specific language of the code's necessity provision, AS 11.81.320. While section .320 adopts necessity as a form of justification and classifies it as an affirmative defense, its provisions do not purport to be exclusive.”
Noy v. State, 83 P.3d 538 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003). “Was Noy entitled to raise a common laiv defense of medical necessity? At trial, Noy argued that he was entitled to have the jury decide whether his possession of marijuana was justified by medical necessity under AS 11.81.320. The trial judge, District Court Judge Jane F.”
Cleveland v. Mun. of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073 (Alaska 1981). “See also AS 11.81.320, directing the courts to apply the common law to the defense of necessity in most situations.”
Seibold v. State, 959 P.2d 780 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998). “Seibold contends that Judge Pengilly erred in rejecting his request to instruct on the defense of necessity.”
Lacey v. State, 54 P.3d 304 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “The law of necessity as it applies to escapes from prison Under AS 11.81.320(a), Alaska law recognizes the defense of necessity "to the extent permitted by common law".”
Gudmundson v. State, 763 P.2d 1360 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “, AS 11.81.320. We are not persuaded by Gudmundson's and Knutson's argument that the necessity defense only applies to situations created by "acts of nature" as opposed to human acts, a proposition on which the hunters rely.”
Allen v. State, 123 P.3d 1106 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “Before trial, Allen's attorney notified the State that he intended to assert the affirmative defense of necessity under AS 11.81.320. On the first day of trial, the State asked the trial judge to preclude Allen from discussing this proposed defense in front of the jury until…”
Jordan v. State, 681 P.2d 346 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “AS 11.81.320 provides: Justification: Necessity, [(a)] Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by common law when (1) neither this title nor any other statute defining the offense provides exemptions or defenses…”
Schnabel v. State, 663 P.2d 960 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “Consequently, the trial court did not err in its instructions and in denying Schnabel’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”
Wells v. State, 687 P.2d 346 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “The reference in AS 11.81.320 to the “common law” makes it in pari materia to AS 01.”
Gerlach v. State, 699 P.2d 358 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “In February of 1982 when Gerlach abducted her daughter Angela Faro, former AS 11.81.320 provided: Justification: Necessity.”
State v. Garrison, 171 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2007). “1990) (interpreting AS 11.81.320). 6 . See AS 11.81.320(b) (stating that necessity is an affirmative defense); AS 11.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(1) — 2 cases
Schnabel v. State, 663 P.2d 960 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “Consequently, the trial court did not err in its instructions and in denying Schnabel’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”
Jordan v. State, 681 P.2d 346 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “AS 11.81.320 provides: Justification: Necessity, [(a)] Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justified by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by common law when (1) neither this title nor any other statute defining the offense provides exemptions or defenses…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(2) — 1 case
Schnabel v. State, 663 P.2d 960 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “Consequently, the trial court did not err in its instructions and in denying Schnabel’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(a) — 6 cases
McGee v. State, 162 P.3d 1251 (Alaska 2007). “" The state's position overlooks the specific language of the code's necessity provision, AS 11.81.320. While section .320 adopts necessity as a form of justification and classifies it as an affirmative defense, its provisions do not purport to be exclusive.”
Seibold v. State, 959 P.2d 780 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998). “Seibold contends that Judge Pengilly erred in rejecting his request to instruct on the defense of necessity.”
Lacey v. State, 54 P.3d 304 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “The law of necessity as it applies to escapes from prison Under AS 11.81.320(a), Alaska law recognizes the defense of necessity "to the extent permitted by common law".”
McGee v. State, 95 P.3d 945 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004).
Scharen v. State, 249 P.3d 331 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(a)(1) — 2 cases
McGee v. State, 162 P.3d 1251 (Alaska 2007). “" The state's position overlooks the specific language of the code's necessity provision, AS 11.81.320. While section .320 adopts necessity as a form of justification and classifies it as an affirmative defense, its provisions do not purport to be exclusive.”
Brown v. Mun. of Anchorage, 915 P.2d 654 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996).
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(a)(l) — 1 case
Noy v. State, 83 P.3d 538 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003). “Was Noy entitled to raise a common laiv defense of medical necessity? At trial, Noy argued that he was entitled to have the jury decide whether his possession of marijuana was justified by medical necessity under AS 11.81.320. The trial judge, District Court Judge Jane F.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.320(b) — 4 cases
Lacey v. State, 54 P.3d 304 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “The law of necessity as it applies to escapes from prison Under AS 11.81.320(a), Alaska law recognizes the defense of necessity "to the extent permitted by common law".”
Allen v. State, 123 P.3d 1106 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “Before trial, Allen's attorney notified the State that he intended to assert the affirmative defense of necessity under AS 11.81.320. On the first day of trial, the State asked the trial judge to preclude Allen from discussing this proposed defense in front of the jury until…”
State v. Garrison, 171 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2007). “1990) (interpreting AS 11.81.320). 6 . See AS 11.81.320(b) (stating that necessity is an affirmative defense); AS 11.”
Brown v. Mun. of Anchorage, 915 P.2d 654 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.