- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- State v. Taylor
Collection
State v. Taylor
State of Washington ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane County District Court ↗
98719-0Wash.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
07/15/2021
Decision
Court of Appeals reversed on issue of what constitutes a reasonable legal alternative for the necessity defense and finding that defendant had made the necessary showing to present a question of fact for a jury.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that a climate activist should be permitted to present a necessity defense to charges of criminal trespass and unlawful obstruction of a train in connection with a 2016 protest on railroad tracks used by trains carrying coal and oil products. The Supreme Court reversed an intermediate appellate court’s decision affirming a superior court determination that the defendant could not present a necessity defense. The intermediate appellate court held that the defendant was not entitled to present the defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and obstruction even if those alternatives were not effective. The Supreme Court called the appellate court’s conclusion that there are always reasonable legal alternatives to disobeying constitutional laws “untenable,” and held that “reasonable legal alternatives” must be effective. Whether a legal alternative was “truly reasonable” would be a fact-dependent determination, and “[i]f the defendant offers evidence that they have actually tried the alternative, had no time to try it, or have a history of futile attempts with the alternative, they have created a question of fact for the jury regarding whether there are reasonable legal alternatives.” In this case, the defendant had presented a question of fact as to whether reasonable legal alternatives existed with evidence of his efforts over the years to “call[] attention to the harms of climate change through lawful methods.” The Supreme Court also noted the testimony of the defendant’s expert on nonviolent resistance “that peaceful civil disobedience is essential to combating climate change.” In the interests of judicial economy, the Supreme Court also held that the defendant satisfied the other three elements of the necessity defense: (1) he presented sufficient evidence to reach a jury on the question of whether he believed his actions were necessary to avoid or minimize harms; (2) he did not bring about the threatened harms; and (3) he presented sufficient facts to support a conclusion that the harms he sought to avoid were greater than the harm caused by violation of the law, including evidence that he planned the protest for a time when trains were not scheduled to approach and that he notified the railway company.
State ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane County District Court ↗
18-2-01418-7Wash. Super. Ct.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
11/15/2018
Other
District court reversed.
–
–
State ex rel. Haskell v. Spokane County District Court ↗
36506-9-IIIWash. Ct. App.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
06/09/2020
Decision
Superior Court's determination that defendant could not raise necessity defense affirmed.
In a split opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals held that a protestor who stood on train tracks to protest the transport of oil and coal was not entitled to present a necessity defense because he had “reasonable legal alternatives” to trespass and unlawful obstruction, “even if those alternatives had not brought about timely legislative changes.” The defendant had testified that he believed his actions were necessary to avoid the “imminent danger” of train derailment and “to minimize the danger to the Earth due to climate change.” A climate scientist, conflict resolution professor, and international analyst in nuclear waste storage and transportation, accident prevention, and emergency planning and homeland security also testified or submitted an affidavit in support of his assertion of the necessity defense. The appellate court, which noted that the Washington Supreme Court had not addressed the question, stated: “The necessity defense does not apply to persons who engage in civil disobedience by intentionally violating constitutional laws. This is because such persons knowingly place themselves in conflict with the law and, if the law is constitutional, courts should not countenance this. There are always reasonable legal alternatives to disobeying constitutional laws.” The appellate court discussed State v. Ward—in which another division of the Washington Court of Appeals concluded that a climate change protestor should have been allowed to present a necessity defense—and said it disagreed with the decision “[t]o the extent Ward authorizes people to intentionally violate constitutional laws when protests and petitions are unsuccessful.” The dissenting judge would have found that the district court correctly ruled that the defendant in this case presented facts to support a necessity defense and that a jury should determine his guilt or innocence.
01/14/2020
Amicus Motion/Brief
Brief filed by law professors as amici curiae in support of petitioners.
–
State v. Taylor ↗
6Z0117975Wash. Dist. Ct.4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
03/30/2018
Appeal
Ruling allowing necessity defense appealed by Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.
–
–
03/13/2018
Decision
Motion to allow necessity defense and to allow expert witness testimony granted.
On March 13, 2018, a Washington District Court issued its written findings of fact and conclusions of law allowing a defendant who participated in a protest blocking a freight train to protest the transport of coal and oil to present a necessity defense at his trial. The defendant testified that he believed his actions were “acts of civil disobedience” that he believed “were necessary to avoid or minimize the imminent danger to the Earth due to climate change and the serious and imminent risk of danger to safety of Spokane citizens in the downtown area where [the rail company] transports volatile oil.” Three expert witnesses testified or submitted a declaration on the defendant’s behalf—a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment, a professor of conflict resolution who teaches courses on nonviolent civil resistance, and a “recognized international analyst in nuclear waste storage and transportation and industrial chemical use, transportation and accident prevention, and emergency planning and homeland security.” The court concluded that the defendant satisfied his burden of proof with respect to the necessity defense’s four prongs: he “believed that his actions were necessary to avoid or minimize the immediate harms of global change to the Earth”; he presented evidence that the harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm he and other protestors created; he did not bring about the harm he sought to prevent; and he believed he had exhausted all legal alternatives and that no other reasonable alternative existed.
10/16/2017
Decision
Request to present necessity defense granted.
–
A Washington district court ruled that a defendant could present a necessity defense. The defendant in the Washington case was charged with criminal trespass and obstructing and delaying a train in connection with a protest that blocked coal and oil trains.