State of Tennessee v. Brandon Cole-Pugh, 588 S.W.3d 254

Defendant Brandon Cole‑Pugh, a convicted felon, was observed on store video during an early‑morning altercation at The Gold Line Market; a handgun fell from another man during the fight and Cole‑Pugh obtained it.
Witnesses and video showed Cole‑Pugh left the store holding a downward‑pointed pistol, never pointed or fired it; the firearm was not found on him at arrest and was later not recovered.
Shortly after, a different assailant fired, wounding Cole‑Pugh’s girlfriend and another witness; the State charged Cole‑Pugh with being a felon in possession of a handgun.
At the charge conference defense counsel orally requested a jury instruction on the general defense of necessity; the trial court denied the request.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding necessity was fairly raised and that written request was not required for plenary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defense of necessity was fairly raised and trial court erred by refusing the instruction	State: Evidence did not show defendant reasonably believed imminent bodily harm; subsequent shootings were separate events so necessity was not immediate	Cole‑Pugh: He grabbed the fallen gun to prevent aggressor/others from reclaiming and using it; conduct was immediately necessary and proportionate	Court: Necessity was fairly raised when evidence viewed in defendant's favor; trial court erred in refusing instruction; reversal and remand
Whether failure to submit a written request for the necessity instruction waives appellate review	State: Lack of written request forfeits review of instructional error	Cole‑Pugh: Oral request at charge conference sufficed; trial court has duty to instruct on general defenses raised by evidence	Court: No waiver; trial court obliged to instruct on general defenses fairly raised regardless of written request; plenary review allowed
Whether defendant had to testify about his fear or belief to raise necessity	State: Defendant offered no testimony that he reasonably feared imminent harm	Cole‑Pugh: Defendant need not testify; jury may infer reasonable belief from circumstances	Court: Defendant’s silence cannot be compelled; court must draw reasonable inferences for defendant and instruction may be required absent defendant’s testimony

State v. Perrier, 536 S.W.3d 388 (Tenn. 2017) (standard for when a general defense is "fairly raised" and burden shift to prosecution)
State v. Hawkins, 406 S.W.3d 121 (Tenn. 2013) (trial court duty to instruct on law governing issues raised by evidence; distinction between general and affirmative defenses)
State v. Davenport, 973 S.W.2d 283 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (necessity requires imminent threat and that action be the only means to avoid harm)
United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (necessity/duress defenses fail if reasonable legal alternative existed)
State v. Green, 995 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (discussion of necessity/duress and the rare situations where necessity applies)
State v. Sims, 45 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2001) (defendant entitled to have every factual issue raised by evidence submitted to the jury)