## Facts

- Scotty Reece Ridner, a convicted felon, was sought by Kentucky officers executing an arrest warrant at a residence where he and his brother were present.
- When officers approached, Ridner fled through the house and out the back door; officers apprehended him nearby.
- A search of Ridner’s person revealed three rounds of shotgun ammunition in his pocket.
- Officers searched the residence and found a 12-gauge shotgun under a sofa.
- Ridner proffered that he picked up the shells to prevent his brother, who had discussed suicide, from using them.
- Ridner asserted he did not know a shotgun was already in the house and believed any firearm his brother might use would have to be retrieved from a pawnshop.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court could pretrial bar a necessity defense to a felon-in-possession charge based on an insufficient evidentiary proffer.
2. Whether Ridner’s proffer satisfied the Sixth Circuit’s necessity test, including (a) a present, imminent threat and (b) termination of unlawful possession as soon as possible.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the order granting the government’s motion in limine excluding the necessity defense.
- The court held circuit precedent permits pretrial exclusion of an affirmative defense when the defendant’s proffer, even if credited, fails as a matter of law.
- The court concluded Ridner failed to make a prima facie showing of necessity because his evidence did not satisfy at least two required factors: imminence and prompt cessation of the illegal conduct.
- The conviction entered after Ridner’s conditional guilty plea (reserving the right to appeal the in limine ruling) was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant asserting necessity in this circuit must make a prima facie showing that: (1) a present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury existed; (2) the defendant did not recklessly or negligently create the situation; (3) no reasonable legal alternative existed; (4) the illegal act directly avoided the threatened harm; and (5) the defendant maintained the illegal conduct no longer than absolutely necessary.
- A district court may preclude a defense before trial when the defendant’s proffered evidence, taken as true, does not satisfy the defense elements as a matter of law.
- Speculative or future harm does not satisfy the “imminent threat” requirement for necessity.
- Continued unlawful possession while fleeing law enforcement, rather than surrendering or otherwise promptly terminating possession, can defeat the “no longer than necessary” requirement.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Ridner’s proffered necessity defense to possessing ammunition as a felon could be excluded before trial because the claimed suicide risk was not imminent and Ridner did not end his unlawful possession at the first safe opportunity, making the defense legally unavailable under the circuit’s five-factor test.


United States v. Ridner, 512 F.3d 846 (6th Cir. 2008)