Oregon Appellate Ct - Aug. 19, 2015

by: Abassos, Alarson and Cmaloney • August 19, 2015 • no comments

Choice of Evils - Imminence - A Realistic Threat of Serious Harm is Not Imminent Enough If The Timing Is Vague

A specific, credible threat of serious injury that could be carried out at any time is not sufficiently imminent to assert the defense of choice of evils. The threat must be "immediate" in the sense of being "ready to take place" or "near at hand". Here, defendant was a prison inmate who had been told that his life was in serious danger from a skinhead gang who thought he was a snitch. Thus, he armed himself with a sharpened toothbrush, a prohibited weapon. But because there was no timing associated with the threat and no way to tell that violence might occur that day, much less was "about to happen", the threat was insufficiently imminent, even if absolutely true, to suffice for either choice of evils or self-defense. State v McPhail, 273 Or App 42 (2015).