Homeless man can fight for right to trespass
A homeless man who illegally trespassed to avoid frozen winter nights on the streets can have a jury decide whether his choice to commit the crime was warranted given the frigid temperatures he faced, the state’s highest court has ruled.
“Our law does not permit punishment of the homeless simply for being homeless,” Justice Geraldine Hines wrote for the Supreme Judicial Court in a decision yesterday.
A unanimous SJC found that the judge presiding over David Magadini’s trial should have instructed the jury about the necessity defense — available where a person commits an illegal act to avoid an emergency situation. The court tossed six 2014 trespassing convictions and ordered a new trial.
“This is a landmark decision,” said Jessie Rossman, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “It provides a critical safety valve in situations where following the law would cause more harm than breaking it.”
Magadini was convicted of seven counts of criminal trespass for entering Great Barrington buildings in February, March, April and June of 2014, and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. One of his seven convictions was upheld, and prosecutors will talk to the property owners before deciding whether to hold a new trial.
“We were a little surprised and disappointed,” said Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless. “We thought that under relevant case law that the judge’s decision was correct.”
The SJC made sure to note that the necessity defense will be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that its ruling will not grant homeless people carte blanche to trespass.
“Allowing a defendant to defend his trespassing charges by claiming necessity will not, of course, condone all illegal trespass by homeless persons,” Hines wrote in a footnote. “It simply allows a jury of peers to weigh the ‘competing harms’ to determine criminal responsibility.”
Magadini’s attorney hailed the ruling as a win for homeless people who all to often find themselves without options.
“There is individual and public justice in this decision,” Joseph Schneiderman said. “They were interested in my argument that centered on the plight of homelessness, and I’m very grateful for that. The court struck a thoughtful balance.”
The Committee for Public Counsel Services, the ACLU and mega-firm Ropes and Gray also supported Magadini, writing, “seeking shelter from extreme weather undertakes a quintessential example of lawbreaking by necessity.”