Reference no: EM133299793

Case: Just after midnight on June 6, 2020, in St. Lucie County, Florida, Heather Adams heard her screen door open and the alarm on that door going off, and then heard someone at her front door. She heard banging at the door, so Adams called 911 and hid inside her utility room.

The evidence shows that the defendant, John Donohue, then kicked through a panel on the front door, reached in and unlocked the door, and entered the home. Two officers arrived at the scene with a K-9 unit and proceeded to enter the home, finding Donohue in the first bedroom down the hallway.

Officer Haire testified that Donohue complied when he took Donohue into custody. Donohue was not wearing shoes. Upon examining her house, Adams found that nothing was missing. However, Adams noticed that a shoebox in her bedroom closet had been stepped on, the covering of a nearby safe had been removed, and her dresser drawer was opened.

Donohue was charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling and criminal mischief. Donohue's defense at trial was that he acted out of necessity in breaking into Adam's home.

To support this claim, Donohue introduced the testimony of Denise Dillion, the next-door neighbor of Adams. The neighbor, Dillion, testified that on the night in question, Donohue rang her doorbell, told her that men were chasing him, and asked her to call the police. Dillion thought that Donohue looked very afraid and that he was looking around, as if to make sure no one was following him.

In explaining why Donohue was running, Bryan Reuther testified as to the events that occurred earlier that night at a party nearby. Reuther testified that at that party, he was slapped by a man to whom he owed money. Reuther had seen Donohue at that party but stated that he had not witnessed anyone hit or chase appellant and that there was no yelling or commotion before or after the slap.

The defendant, Donohue, is charged with two crimes, burglary of an occupied dwelling and criminal mischief. For each crime, identify the elements that the prosecutor will have to prove, and the facts that the prosecutor will use to prove each element.

Question 1: For each crime, burglary of an occupied dwelling and criminal mischief, identify what intent the prosecutor will have to prove. Identify whether each is specific or general intent, and then which level of culpability the crime would be classified under the Model Penal Code level of culpability.

Question 2: The Court will only read the necessity defense to the jury if the defendant offers up proof of each element of the defense. In this situation, will the Court read the defense as requested by the defendant, Donohue? Why or why not?