Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
McMillan v. City of Jacksongreen2 sentences2025“To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must prove three essential elements: (1) the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; (2) . . . no adequate alternative [was there]; and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.” Stodghill, 892 So. 2d at 238 (¶8) (citing McMillan v. City of Jackson, 701 So. 2d 1105, 1106-07 (Miss. 1997)). ¶38. 2023To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must prove “three essential elements: (1) the act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must have been no adequate alternative; and (3) the harm must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided.” McMillan v. City of Jackson, 701 So. 2d 1105, 1107 (Miss. 1997) (citing Cleveland v. Mun. of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073 (Alaska 1981)). ¶23. | 2 | 4 |
Stodghill v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must prove three essential elements: (1) the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; (2) . . . no adequate alternative [was there]; and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.” Stodghill, 892 So. 2d at 238 (¶8) (citing McMillan v. City of Jackson, 701 So. 2d 1105, 1106-07 (Miss. 1997)). ¶38. 2015For a defendant to show that he had “an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, he must prove three essential elements: (1) the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there was no adequate alternative; and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.” Stodghill v. State, 892 So.2d 236, 238 (¶ 8) (Miss.2005). ¶ 43. | 2 | 2 |
Martez Taylor v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2025We previously considered and found the defense of necessity applicable to a felon in possession of a weapon charge in Taylor v. State, 246 So. 3d 936, 938-39 (¶7) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Anderson, 185 So.3d at 1024 (¶ 37) (quoting Williams v. State, 953 So.2d 260, 263-64 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Michael T. Anderson v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2016Anderson, 185 So.3d at 1024 (¶ 37) (quoting Williams v. State, 953 So.2d 260, 263-64 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cleveland v. Municipality of Anchorage
green
1 sentence2023To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must prove “three essential elements: (1) the act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must have been no adequate alternative; and (3) the harm must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided.” McMillan v. City of Jackson, 701 So. 2d 1105, 1107 (Miss. 1997) (citing Cleveland v. Mun. of Anchorage, 631 P.2d 1073 (Alaska 1981)). ¶23. | 1 | 2023–2023 |