norml15 - Page 5

Page 5 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 §33-402 and 22_3601 respeetNe!yo _t was the crime, for example, it must be proven tiun of innocence, since necessity of its nature
 alleged that because of the defendants' beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts arises only in cases where the defendant
 heroin addiction, they were incapable of alleged by the defendant are not to be admits committing the prohibitedect. Thus, a
 harboring the requisite criminal intent and believed. Where defendant interposes a defendant who seeks to avail himself of the
 therefore that they should not be held crimio justification defense such as duress, e. ecessity, necessity defense should be required to prove
 nally responsible for their actions. Rejecting or self-defense, ors the other hand, a less it by a preponderance of the evidence, The
 this defense, the Court held that for reasons of stringent requirement, such as the prepono defendant in the instant case has carried this
 law and public Policy, addiction cannot derance standard, is employed. This Point is evidentlary burden.
 constitute a defense Lo possession of illegal well illustrated by the varying uses of the CONCLUSION
 drugs. Faced with a statute designed to insanity defense. Where sanity is seen as an
 control dangerous drugs, and t_ provide implied element of the crime, the government Upon the basis of the foregoing discussion,
 treatment for addicts who might not other- usually bears the burden of negating defend- the Court finds that defendant Robert C. Ram
 wise seek it, the Court refused to render a ant's allegation of insanity beyor_d a reasonable dull has established the defense of necessity.
 ,_ decision which would, in effect, completely doubt. W here insanity is considered a justffi_ Accordingly, it is the finding of this Court that
 _ nullify the law. The opinion also stresses that cation or as excuse for allowing the accused to he is not guilty of a violation of D.C. Code
 drug addiction is not a victimtess crime, but escape criminal sanctions, however, it is the §33-402, and that the charge against him must
 rather one whose cost is borne by the defendant who must establish it. be and hereby is
 taxpayers and the victims of the burglarfes, Despite this traditional approach, recent DISMISSED.
 robberies and muggings perpetrated to sup- cases suggest that the government Leafs the
 port drug habits, burden of negating any defense raised by an
 :_ in L;_ited States v. Moore, supra, defend- accused° In MvAlaney v. Wt_bur, 421 UoS. 684 __R_T__E:RV[CE:$
 ant appealed from conviction of possession of (1975), the Supreme Court considered an
 heroin in violation of two federal statutes.
 attack on the constitutionality of a Mzdae WEANER A_OC_ATE$_ _.
 Without disputing that the government had statute which required an accused who wished
 established each of the clemens of the to reduce a charge of murder to mansiaughter REG|$T_RED PRDFE$$10NAL
 offense, appellant contended that his heroin _ prove by a preponderance of the evidence MECHANICAL & SAFETY E_GiNEEA$
 addiction negated a primary ret_juisite for Chat he had acted lathe heat of passion. In an
 criminal responsibility, "the capacity to con- opinion which stressed the importance of the R. [. WE|NER, POE., C.$,P.
 :_ trol behavior. '_ Affirming t. he - conviction, presuraption of innocence and the r_esultant Accident PReeon_ruction
 the Court noted that since defendant's placing on the government of the risk of Accident Prevention
 ingestion of the heroin had been knowing and no.persuasion, the statute was found to be Industrial Safety
 voluntary, the compulsion brought about by vio}ative of due process, See also In. re Co_sumer _roduct Safety
 the drug could mot be raised as an excuse for Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1969), where the I7_7 YORK ROAD i
 his criminal behavior. As Judge Leventhal in Supreme Court., in extending to juvenile cases LUTHERVILLE, MARYLAND 21093
 his concurring opinion makes clear, to i_ermit the obligation of _he government to e:_tablish
 such a defense would be to broader m2per- guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, discussed the {3_1) _5_,5_0
 missibly the contours of the original common influence o_ the presumption of innocence in
 law defense. Under the defendant's formula- pIacing the burden of persuasion on the CL&_[F[E_
 ,i tion, he argues, court would be non.rained to prosecution°
 ! except most drug users from criminal penal- A case in a neighboring jurisd_ctAon, Evans SffUAT_ON AVAILABLE
 ties, a consequence in clear violation of the v. Starer 28 Md. App. 640, 349 A.2d 300
 ::: intent of Congress to protect the public. For (1975L has interpreted Mullaney as requiring ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
 _his reason, and because of the attendant the government to bear the burden of PUBLIC iNTEREST ACTIVITIES
 _: problems of developing objective standards of disproving all defenses. The District of Lawyer with EEO litigation experience and e×pe-
 proof, Judge Leventhal believes that the Columbia Court of Appeals, however, has rience in other legalservices or public interest law to
 necessity defense should not be avail, able to rejected this view. In James v. United States, work with Director of Public Interest Activities to
 this defendant. 350 A.2d 748 (D.(k App. 1976}, defendant expand and direct D.C. Bar's public interest ac˘ivi
 i Both of these decisions are readily distin- appealed from a conviction of possession of ties. Salary approximately $18.900. Resumes should
 f guishable from the case at bar. UnEke the implements of crime, alleging constit:_tional be submitted no Inter than January 14, I977 to the
 defendants in Moore and Gotham, the accused infirmities in the statute. Arguing_hat the pro- D.C. _ar, 1426 H St.0 N.W.. Suite 840. Washington.
 vision atiowing an accused to show innocent D,C. 20005. 3x
 in the instant ease did nothing to bring about
 i the circumstances necessitating his use of the possession impermissibly shifted the burden
 prohibited drug. Recognition by the Cou_ of of proof, the defendant contended that the OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE
 this defense will not have the effect of statute was ur_constitutional in li_ht of the Attractive office in suite in pleasant surroundings
 nullifying the statute. Medical necessity is Mu//aney decision. Affirming aefer,.dant's Federal Bar B|dg. West. Library and dining facilities
 difficult to demonstrate, and would not be conviction, the Covrt distinguished M_21aney available. 293-3144. 12/21RUS
 availab]e to a sufficiently large number of on several grounds, most notably because the
 those accused that it would support wholesale Mutlaney decision was based on a finding that A_tractive office in law suite- Conn. Ave. See.
 use of marijuana. Objective standards of proof there was no valid justification for placing on space avail All conve_. Call Mrs. Kraft 223468&
 can be developed without undue hardship, the defendant the burden of es_blishing a ..............................._1 26u_;
 since the existence of a disease and its _'fact so critical to criminal culpabilRy'. _ In Downtown, D.C. 18th St. area. office suites avail, in
 response to the drug can be demonstrated James, however, two separate b[dgs. Various combinations of space.
 se_entifieallyo !n addition, permitting this only the accused could know ef pc:ssible $5.70 per sq. ft. Call Mr. Roils 347-4704. ext. !08.
 Limited use of marijuana, a drug with no innocent masons he may have p_,essed 15x12,'22-_/ls
 demonstrably harmful effects, will not em the implements efa cr_e, and it does not
 danger the general _ublic in the way that violate due process to require him to give _ Stock in A_ca_
 heroin might. Thus Moore and Oorham are a satisfactory explanation for otherwise
 inapposite; the rulings do not dictate a validly presumedcriminalpossession,_ _oi'td$_abow_JS_u_
 decision in the instant case.
 Finally, it is appropriate here to discu_ the This Court betieves that James, which is LAW _O_K$ _OR SALE
 burden of proof where the necessity defense is controlling in this jurisdiction, takes the
 raised. While this issue does not arise in the correct approach for cases of necessity. Sinee I3sed set---Shepard's U.S. Administrative Citations.
 ease at bar, the government having contested the defense does not attempt to disprove arty $65.00.872-7690o 5_I2/27 I:3/77
 only the applicability of the defense, the Court element of the government's case, it should be
 anticipates that it wiil be significant in the classified as an affirmative defense whk:h the LEGAL NOTICES
 future. In general, an accused who raises any accused bears the burden of establishir_g. _n
 of the so-called affirmative defenses bears to addition, the necessity defense0 like the _.$. COAST _t_A_
 some extent the risk of nonpersuasion. The innocent possession raised in James, is one ....
 Notice is hereby given that an order dat_ :._:
 weight of the burden in any given case, uniquely within the knowledge of the defend-
 however, depends on the law's conception of ant. *
 Placing the burden of persu&uion on the December 15. 1976, has been isaued by th_
 the nature of the defense. Where the defense defendant does not conflict with the presump- undersigned authorizing the name of the Gaa Screw
 Vessel, BOBBIE B, official _umber 5394_. o_
 is actually an attempt to negate an element of
 _ 42_ u_s. _t 702, by Hollywood House T.V., of which Wuhing_4_a,
 33. Moore, aupra at 381. 35. 3.50 A.2_ at 749 D.C. is the home purl to be changed to ANDY

Previous , Next , Return to Index