United States v. Black, 17-7027

On June 29, 2016, after an altercation at a river, Julius Black rode home with Gary Howe; an exchange at Black’s house ended with Black in possession of a gun and Howe calling 911.
Black and Howe gave conflicting accounts: Howe said Black pulled and used the gun; Black said Howe handed or produced the gun and Black took it to prevent Howe from using it and to protect family members.
Officers arrived 1–2 hours after the fight; they found Black asleep in bed, naked, with the unloaded gun on a nightstand three feet away and Howe’s truck keys in Black’s pocket.
Black was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possessing a gun with an obliterated serial number; convicted on the felon-in-possession charge and acquitted on the serial-number charge.
At trial Black requested a jury instruction on the necessity defense (asserting he kept the gun to prevent imminent harm); the district court refused and the Tenth Circuit reviewed that denial for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Black was entitled to a jury instruction on the necessity defense to justify possession of the firearm	Black: he seized/kept the gun to prevent imminent harm to his cousin and her children; necessity justified possession	Government: Black failed to show lack of legal alternatives and no ongoing imminent danger when officers arrived	Court: Instruction properly denied — Black failed to prove no legal alternative and the threat was not shown to be imminent at time of officers’ arrival

Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (establishes that a defendant is entitled to instruction when evidence could support a defense)
United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2006) (articulates narrow, strict application of federal necessity defense and its elements)
United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (reasonableness/legal alternative requirement defeats necessity defense)
United States v. Newcomb, 6 F.3d 1129 (6th Cir. 1993) (noting cases where defendants were apprehended contemporaneously with imminent-threat situations)
United States v. Paolello, 951 F.2d 537 (3d Cir. 1991) (similar to Newcomb: possession coincident with imminent-threat circumstances)