State Ex Rel Haskell v. Spokane County District Court

Facts

D was part of a group of protestors who walked onto BNSF property and stood on the mainline tracks. “No Trespassing” signs were posted, and D knew the property was private and he had no permission to enter the property. D and his fellow protestors held signs and banners protesting the transport of coal and oil. D and others were told they would be arrested if they refused to leave. Three protestors, including D, politely refused to leave and remained on the tracks. Law enforcement escorted the three off the tracks and peacefully arrested them. P charged D with criminal trespass in the second degree and unlawful obstruction of a train, both misdemeanors. D filed a motion requesting to assert the defense of necessity. At the hearing, D and two of his experts testified in support of his motion, and D submitted a declaration of his third expert. The gist of the issue was that D claimed climate change will doom us all. D said he protested on the train tracks to bring local legislative attention to the imminent danger posed by coal and oil trains that pass through cities. D believed the danger to the public through the railroad transport of coal and oil through Spokane was far greater than his act of trespassing. The district court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and discussed the four elements a defendant must establish to assert the defense of necessity. The district court concluded that D was required to establish “the D believed no reasonable legal alternative existed.” Because D believed no reasonable legal alternative to trespassing and obstructing a train existed, and because he had presented sufficient evidence of the first three elements, the district court granted D's motion allowing him to present the defense of necessity at trial. P filed an application for a statutory writ of review with the county superior court. The superior court granted the writ. The court again discussed the four elements of the defense of necessity, including the fourth element, whether “no reasonable legal alternative existed” other than for D to trespass and obstruct trains. The court disagreed with D's interpretation and concluded the standard was whether no reasonable legal alternative existed. The court determined that D had reasonable legal alternatives and reversed the district court. D then petitioned this court to determine in part whether the superior court erred by precluding him from raising the defense of necessity

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.