## Facts

- Leonard Rollon Crawford was prosecuted for assault and unlawful carrying of a handgun under Md. Code art. 27, § 36B(b), which broadly prohibited carrying a handgun (open or concealed) absent limited statutory exceptions.
- While in his second-story apartment, intruders entered and shot at Crawford.
- During a struggle, Crawford disarmed an assailant; he then fell out of the window, and the handgun landed near him.
- Wounded and believing the attackers were still pursuing him, Crawford picked up the handgun to protect himself.
- Crawford lacked a meaningful opportunity to obtain police assistance before or during the emergency, including evidence that his phone service was disconnected and that he was dazed after the fall.
- The attackers continued pursuing him and shot him again while he still had the handgun.
- When Crawford encountered a police officer, he surrendered the handgun.
- The trial court refused Crawford’s requested necessity-defense instruction on the handgun charge; the jury acquitted him of assault but convicted him of unlawful handgun carrying.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed the handgun conviction; the State sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether the common-law defense of necessity is available to a charge of unlawful carrying of a handgun under Md. Code art. 27, § 36B(b).
2. Whether the evidence in this case generated a jury question on necessity, requiring a jury instruction.

## Decision

- The court held that the common-law necessity defense is available, in principle, to a charge under § 36B(b).
- The court held that Crawford produced sufficient evidence to generate the defense and was entitled to a necessity instruction.
- The court affirmed the intermediate appellate court’s reversal of the handgun conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law defenses remain available in Maryland unless the legislature clearly abrogates them.
- A comprehensive statutory scheme regulating handguns and providing permit procedures does not, without clear language, eliminate a narrow ex post necessity justification.
- Necessity in the handgun-carrying context is limited and requires evidence of:
  - an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm;
  - no reasonable legal alternative to avoid the harm;
  - temporary possession directly tied to meeting the emergency (often after disarming an aggressor);
  - prompt surrender or dispossession once safe, with continued possession after the emergency outside the defense.
- When evidence supports each element sufficiently to permit a rational finding of necessity, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction; refusal to instruct is error.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a tightly confined necessity defense to Maryland’s handgun-carrying prohibition and required a jury instruction where the defendant’s brief, defensive possession of an assailant’s gun was compelled by an ongoing, life-threatening attack and ended with prompt surrender to police.


State v. Crawford, 308 Md. 683, 521 A.2d 1193 (Md. 1987)