## Facts

- Dale Lee Nelson drove his four-wheel-drive truck off the Steese Highway onto a side road, where it became stuck in a marshy area about 250 feet off the highway.
- Nelson and two companions tried for about an hour to free the truck; Nelson said he feared it might tip in the soft ground.
- After waiting several hours for help, they entered a Highway Department equipment yard posted with no-trespassing signs and took a dump truck to pull out Nelson’s vehicle; the dump truck became stuck.
- A stranded motorist appeared later that morning; Nelson returned to the yard, took a front-end loader, used it to free the dump truck, and used the dump truck to free the motorist’s vehicle, returning the dump truck to the yard.
- Nelson then attempted to use the front-end loader to free his own truck; the loader also became stuck.
- After roughly twelve hours of efforts, Nelson and his companions stopped and slept on site until a Highway Department employee awakened them and made a citizen’s arrest.
- The conduct caused more than $10,000 in damage to the dump truck and front-end loader.
- Nelson was charged with reckless destruction of personal property (former AS 11.20.515(b)) and joyriding (AS 28.35.010).
- At trial, Nelson requested a necessity instruction; the court instructed on necessity in a manner Nelson claimed improperly invited an objective, after-the-fact evaluation.

## Issues

1. What legal standard governs the common-law necessity defense in Alaska, including whether necessity turns on the defendant’s reasonable belief at the time rather than an objective ex post assessment.
2. Whether any instructional error on necessity required reversal or was harmless because Nelson could not satisfy necessity’s elements on the evidence.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed Nelson’s convictions.
- The court articulated a three-part necessity test: (1) the act was done to prevent a significant evil, (2) there was no adequate legal alternative, and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.
- The court recognized necessity is evaluated through the defendant’s reasonable belief in the circumstances at the time of acting, subject to objective reasonableness.
- Any defect in the trial court’s necessity instruction was harmless because Nelson’s conduct did not satisfy the necessity requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Necessity justifies otherwise criminal conduct only when undertaken to avoid a significant evil, where no adequate lawful alternative exists, and where the resulting harm is not disproportionate to the harm avoided.
- The necessity defense may rest on a reasonable belief in the need to act, even if the perceived emergency is mistaken in hindsight, so long as the belief is objectively reasonable.
- Necessity is unavailable when the defendant has reasonable lawful options to address the problem instead of committing the charged offense.
- A necessity-instruction error is harmless if, on the record, the defendant cannot establish the defense as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court clarified Alaska’s necessity doctrine as a narrow, three-element justification centered on reasonable belief, but affirmed because Nelson had legal alternatives, faced no qualifying emergency, and caused disproportionate harm, rendering any instructional error nonprejudicial.


Nelson v. State, 597 P.2d 977 (Alaska 1979)