## Facts

- Massachusetts law criminalized distributing hypodermic needles and syringes without a prescription under G.L. c. 94C.
- Harry W. Leno, Jr. and Robert E. Ingalls operated an informal needle-exchange program in Lynn, Massachusetts, trading clean needles and syringes for used ones among intravenous drug users to reduce HIV/AIDS transmission.
- In June 1991, police arrested the defendants and charged them with numerous counts of unauthorized possession of hypodermic needles and syringes and one count each of distributing an instrument for administering a controlled substance.
- At trial, the defendants presented expert evidence that needle-exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and testified that their purpose was public health rather than facilitating drug use.
- The defendants requested a jury instruction on the defense of necessity, arguing that violating the prescription requirement was needed to prevent the greater harm of AIDS spread.
- The trial judge refused to instruct on necessity, and the jury convicted the defendants on the possession and distribution charges.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review to consider whether the necessity instruction should have been given.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants prosecuted for unlawful possession and distribution of hypodermic needles and syringes were entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity based on operating a needle-exchange program to reduce AIDS transmission.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the defendants were not entitled to a necessity instruction.
- The court concluded the asserted harm did not satisfy the requirement of a clear and imminent danger in the manner required for necessity.
- The court also concluded that reasonable legal alternatives existed, including pursuing change through the legislative process.

## Legal Principles

- Necessity is a narrow defense requiring proof of: (1) a clear and imminent danger; (2) a reasonable expectation the illegal act will directly and effectively reduce that danger; (3) no adequate legal alternatives; and (4) a harm avoided that outweighs the harm caused by violating the law.
- A generalized, ongoing public-health crisis, without a discrete imminent emergency tied to the defendant’s specific violation, does not satisfy the “clear and imminent danger” requirement.
- The necessity defense is unavailable when the defendant has reasonable lawful avenues to address the problem, including political and legislative action.
- Courts will not use necessity to override a legislative policy judgment embodied in a criminal statute based on a defendant’s claim that their conduct better serves public welfare.

## Conclusion

The court held that operating an unauthorized needle-exchange program could not be justified by necessity because the danger was not imminent in the required sense and lawful alternatives remained available, so the trial judge properly refused a necessity instruction and the convictions were affirmed.


Commonwealth v. Leno, 616 N.E.2d 453 (Mass. 1993)