Skip to content
Name: People v. Miceli
Case #: C036703
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/11/2002
Subsequent History: 1/7/03 modified on den. of rehrg.; 3/5/03 rev. den.
Summary

The trial court properly refused to instruct on the defense of necessity. Substantial evidence supported defendant’s conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The trial court properly declined to instruct on the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. The appellate court agreed that defendant’s conviction for assault with a firearm upon victim-Linton on July 4 must be stricken because it is a lesser included offense of assault with a semiautomatic firearm. The evidence essentially showed defendant pistol-whipped Linton without justification or excuse. His claim that he assaulted Linton to stop him from immediately endangering the life of his common-law wife by supplying her with methamphetamine did not meet the requirements for a necessity defense, since defendant could not show he had no alternative to breaking the law, nor was this belief objectively reasonable.