Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 11.41.330(b)

The defendant has raised the affirmative defense of necessity. To establish this defense, the defendant must prove that both of the following two sets of circumstances are more likely true than not true.

First, that the protracted period for which the defendant held the child or incompetent person did not exceed the shorter of the following:

(1) 24 hours; or

(2) the time necessary to report to a peace officer or social service agency that the child or incompetent person has been abused, neglected, or is in imminent physical danger

Second, that:

(1) the defendant believed that [he] [she] violated the law to prevent a significant harm;

(2) the defendant believed that [he] [she] had no adequate alternative to violating the law;

(3) the defendant’s beliefs described in statements (1) and (2) were reasonable; and

(4) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.

The burden is on the defendant to prove necessity by a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely true than not true. It is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of custodial interference in the [first degree] [second degree], but you also find that the defendant has proved both of the above sets of circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty on that count.