Wisconsin
How Commonwealth v. Lutz applies in Wisconsin: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Law.
In Wisconsin, the principles established in Commonwealth v. Lutz emphasize the importance of intent and the conditions surrounding the defense of necessity. Courts in Wisconsin often assess whether a defendant's choice to commit a criminal act was made under duress, weighing the immediacy of harm against the legality of actions taken.
In Wisconsin, the necessity defense allows a defendant to argue that they committed a crime to prevent a greater harm, provided the harm avoided was immediate and imminent.
The court ruled that a defendant may invoke the necessity defense if it can be proven that the illegal act was aimed at preventing a significant, imminent threat.
This case confirmed that the necessity defense is not available if the defendant created the danger they sought to avoid.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court elaborated on the parameters of the necessity defense, stating that it requires immediate peril.
Wisconsin's approach to the necessity defense is more stringent than some federal interpretations, particularly in the evaluation of what constitutes 'imminent harm'. While federal courts may allow broader interpretations, Wisconsin emphasizes a clear, immediate threat to justify any unlawful act.
Questions regarding the necessity defense are frequently included in the Wisconsin bar exam, particularly in the context of assessing defendant intent and the immediacy of harms.