Homeless man should have been allowed to argue necessity in trespass case, state high court rules
A homeless man should have been allowed to present a necessity defense in a prosecution for trespassing in cold winter weather, the top court in Massachusetts ruled on Thursday.
The Supreme Judicial Court tossed six out of seven trespassing convictions against David Magadini, report the Associated Press, the Boston Herald, the Boston Globe, the Berkshire Eagle and State House News Service. The conviction upheld by the court was for a trespass at an ice cream shop in June 2014.
A trial judge in the case had found that Magadini did not present any evidence that he was unable to rent a motel room on cold nights, and refused to allow the defense. Magadini had testified he couldn’t use the local homeless shelter because it had banned him from the premises. He was convicted for trespassing in three privately owned buildings whose owners had obtained no-trespass orders against him.
The Supreme Judicial Court said (PDF) Magadini was not required to “conceptualize all possible alternatives” to trespassing to be able to assert the necessity defense.
The Supreme Judicial Court said in a footnote that allowing a necessity defense “will not, of course condone all illegal trespass by homeless persons. It simply allows a jury of peers to weigh the ‘competing harms’ to determine criminal responsibility.”
