DocketNumber： 811-815
Judges： Cercone, Spaeth, Hester, Brosky, Wieand, Beck, Johnson
Filed Date： 5/1/1984
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
These appeals are from judgments of sentence for criminal trespass. Appellants’ convictions arise from an incident that occurred during a demonstration against nuclear power at the Shippingport Nuclear Power Plant. Appellants argue that the trial court should have permitted them to prove that their conduct was justified under Section 503 of the Crimes Code. We agree and therefore vacate the
We have divided our discussion explaining this conclusion into four parts. These may be summarized as follows.
First: Appellants offered to prove that their conduct met the requirements of the defense of justification as defined in Section 503(a) of the Crimes Code, specifically, that they reasonably believed their conduct “to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil,” and that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided by [their] conduct [was] greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining [their conduct as criminal trespass].” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503(a). The trial court rejected appellants’ offer. In doing so the court made plain its belief that even if appellants had been permitted to present their evidence, they would not have been able to prove that their trespass was justified. Perhaps so. But the jury should have been allowed to appraise appellants’ evidence.
Second: In its opinion dismissing appellants’ post-verdict motions the trial court read into Section 503(a) requirements that it considered were requirements of the common law defense of necessity. We do not find the common law clear. But in any event, the common law should not be read into Section 503(a), for to do so violates the principle that a criminal statute is to be narrowly construed, in favor of the accused.
Third: The trial court also rejected appellants’ offer of proof on the ground that Section 503(a) has been preempted by federal and state legislation regulating nuclear power. We hold, however, that there has been no. preemption.
Finally: We have discussed Section 510 of the Crimes Code. Appellants have not claimed, nor has the Commonwealth argued that they should have claimed, the defense of justification provided in Section 510. Nevertheless, we believe that appellants had to meet the requirements of Section 510, and we therefore discuss it. We conclude that
1
On July 15, 1979, appellants participated in a protest against the generation of nuclear power at the Shippingport Nuclear Power Plant. Ignoring a “No Trespass” sign, appellants crept under a fence surrounding the property and sat down, holding hands, about ten to twelve feet from the fence. N.T. 45-48, 51. When a plant security guard and a deputy sheriff warned appellants that they were trespassing on private property, they refused to leave. N.T. 48, 52. The sheriff then placed appellants under arrest and removed them from the property; they did not resist, and were not charged with resisting their arrest. N.T. 52-53. No personal injuries or property damage occurred as a result of appellants’ trespass. N.T. 49. At the time of the demonstration, the nuclear power unit at the plant was shut down, although radio-active material remained in its fuel rods. N.T. 57, 58. The unit was scheduled to resume operations in two weeks. N.T. 58. A second unit was under construction. N.T. 57.
In defending themselves against charges of criminal trespass, appellants relied on Section 503 of the Crimes Code, which provides:
(a) General rule. — Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable if:
(1) the harm or evil' sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged;
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.
(b) Choice of evils. — When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation requiring a choice of harms or evils or in appraising the necessity for*68 his conduct, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for any offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503.
This section is .an almost exact copy of Section 3.02 of the Model Penal Code. In their Comment, the authors of the Code say that Section 3.02 “accepts the view that a principle of necessity, properly conceived, affords a general justification for conduct that otherwise would constitute an offense; and that such a qualification, like the requirements of culpability, is essential to the rationality and justice of all penal provisions.” American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 3.02 Comment at 5 (Tent. Draft No. 8, 1958).
The defense of justification is thus closely related to the common law defense of necessity, regarding which it has been said: “By necessity is meant the assertion that conduct promotes some higher value than the value of literal compliance with the law.” G. Williams, The Criminal Law § 229 (2d ed. 1970). Thus, the concepts of “justification” and “necessity” reflect a judgment on the proper relationship between the state, with its power to declare conduct criminal, and the freedom of the individual. In an early New Jersey case the defense of necessity is described as
a natural right, not appertaining to sovereignty but to individuals considered as individuals. It is a natural right of which government cannot deprive the citizen and founded upon necessity and not expediency. It may be exercised by a single individual for his own personal safety or security, or for the preservation of his own property, or by a community of individuals in defense of their common safety or in the protection of their common rights. It is essentially a private and not a public or official right. It is a right not susceptible of any very precise definition, for the mode and manner and the extent of its exercise must depend on the nature and degree of the necessity that calls it into action, and this*69 cannot be determined until the necessity is made to appear.
Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N.J.L. 714 (1848), aff'd sub nom. American Print Works v. Lawrence, 23 N.J.L. 590 (1851).
Section 501 of the Crimes Code defines “believes” as meaning “reasonably believes.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 501. Accordingly, under Section 503(a)(1) appellants were required to prove that they reasonably believed their trespass “to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to [them] or to another,” and that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided by [their trespass] [was] greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining [their trespass as criminal trespass].”
To meet this burden, appellants filed a pre-trial statement entitled “Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Right to Present Evidence Relative to the Defense of Justification as Defined in 18 C.P.S.A. section 503.” The memorandum contained an offer of proof, divided into two parts. The first part of the offer of proof summarized appellants’ evidence “that they had a reasonable belief that their conduct was necessary to avoid the harm.” Appellants offered to “present testimony and documentary evidence detailing the many and varied activities aimed at shutting down the Shippingport Nuclear Power Plant or eliminating the danger emanating from the plant.” They offered to “show that these efforts have been without result,” and “that even though ‘official channels’ may still exist which might theoretically remove the threatened dangerf,] these avenues offer no real likelihood of achieving results.” Finally, appellants offered to prove “a nexus between their conduct and the avoiding of the threatened harm” by showing that a decision to halt construction of a nuclear power plant in another state “came after the arrest of numerous demonstrators.” The second part of the offer of proof summarized appellants’ evidence “that the harm emanating from the Shippingport Nuclear Power Plant is far greater than any harm resulting from their trespass on the plant site.” Appellants offered to prove
*72 The reason why we went under the fence was not in any way to attempt to take over the nuclear power station, but it was a nonviolent counterpresence to the violent presence of the nuclear power plant. All we simply hoped to accomplish ... was to draw attention to the issue of nuclear power. Now, of course that might seem ridiculous. What is \sic ] six people going under a fence going to do? I put forth to you: What are a bunch of Americans throwing tea into the Boston Harbor going to do? Again, this was a nonviolent demonstration.
N.T. 98.
Appellant Heilman, a nurses’ aide, cited studies she had read on the infant mortality rate in the area, noting that a relationship between infant mortality and low level radiation had been found. She stated: “I just really feel strongly that as a person in the health field I have to practice preventative medicine which means environmentally and personally helping people do things to their bodies that will keep them healthy. I personally see nuclear power as a threat to our health.” N.T. 101. Appellant Wagner stated that he trespassed “first off, [ ] for my family, my parents, my younger brothers and sisters, for they drink the water from ... the Ambridge Reservoir. Ambridge Reservoir is three and a half miles downwind from Shippingport, and I know from documented cases made public that Shippingport has released radiation in excess of government regulations subjecting my family to radiation.” N.T. 108-09.
By limiting appellants’ evidence to their own testimony of their reasons for committing the trespass, the trial court— as it recognized it was doing — effectively denied appellants the opportunity to prove justification. For as already discussed, it was not enough for appellants to prove that they believed that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided [by their conduct] [was] greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining [their conduct as criminal trespass].” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503(a)(1). They had to prove that they reasonably so believed. And they could not prove their reasonableness without proving what in fact “the harm or
To be sure, perhaps appellants would not have been able to prove justification anyway. The jury might have rejected their experts’ testimony, and might have interpreted the documentary evidence differently than appellants do. But appellants were entitled to have the jury hear their evidence.
In determining whether or not to allow a defendant to raise the defense of necessity, a trial judge should only decide whether or not the question of values presented by the defendant is frivolous. If the values asserted by the defendant are so bizarre as to be clearly unacceptable to any significant portion of the community, the defense' should not be allowed.
Arnolds & Garland, The Defense of Necessity in Criminal Law: The Right to Choose the Lesser Evil, 65 J.Crim.L. & Criminology, 289, 296 (1974).
The values asserted by appellants were in no sense either frivolous or bizarre. If the jury had heard, and accepted, their evidence, it might have found justification. For “[t]he balancing of evils” would have disclosed, on the one side, a
In its opinion the trial court states that it “could properly have excluded [appellants’] proffered evidence on the grounds that 18 C.P.S.A. § 503(b) was not satisfied since each [appellant] was ‘reckless or negligent ... in appraising the necessity for his conduct’ because non-criminal alternatives were available to avoid any impending danger.” Slip op. at 5. The court then goes on to say that “[a]n alternative course of action for [appellants] herein would have been to present their evidence of danger to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the State Department of Health and to take appeals from adverse decisions____” Id. at 6. We are not persuaded by this reasoning. In the first place,
Neither are we persuaded by the trial court’s citation to United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). There the charge was escape from prison. The Court withheld the common law defenses of duress and necessity on the ground that reasonable legal alternatives to violating the law existed. As the Court said:
Under any definition of these defenses one principle remains constant: if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, “a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,” the defenses will fail.
Id. at 410, 100 S.Ct. at 634 (quoting LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law 379 (1972)).
However, Section 503(a)(1) of the Crimes Code does not require that a defendant pleading justification must prove exhaustion of other alternatives, for as stated in the comment to the Section: “[T]he formulation makes the actor’s belief in the necessity sufficient____ Questions of immediacy and of alternatives have bearing, of course, on the genuineness of a belief in necessity, ____” Model Penal Code § 3.02 Comment at 10.
Again, it should be noted that appellants might not have been able to prove what they offered to prove. Just as the jury might have rejected appellants’ evidence that there was an existing and continuing evil, it might have found that even if there was such an evil, appellants had acted precipitously — in other words, that there were other, legal, alternatives available to them that were not futile and should have been tried, and that, therefore, appellants had failed to prove, as required by Section 503(a)(1), that they reasonably believed their criminal conduct to be “necessary to avoid [the] harm or evil [resulting from the operation of the Shippingport Plant].” However, by its ruling rejecting appellant’s offer of proof, the trial court deprived appellants
In rejecting appellant’s offer of proof, the trial court made plain its belief that even if appellants had been permitted to present their evidence, they would not have been able to prove that their trespass was justified. Thus after concluding that appellants’ trespass could not have been justified since appellants failed to pursue alternatives, the court states: “To allow [appellants] to engage in criminal activity and then escape the consequences by asserting a defense of justification, although alternative courses of action existed, would be to encourage chaos and anarchy. However well-intentioned and sincere in the beliefs which motivated them [appellants] unjustifiably attempted to circumvent procedures legislated by the majority and thus acted in a manner which cannot be tolerated if our system of democracy is to survive.” Slip op. at 6. The court then states: “At most [appellants’] actions could only have led to a heightened public awareness of the issues which could just as easily have been accomplished through non-criminal demonstrations and other dissemination of information.” Id. at 6-7. In considering these observations, we have encountered two difficulties.
First, appellants’ offer of proof, rather than suggesting that appellants circumvented “procedures legislated by the majority,” contains assertions that appellants had sought relief through regulatory channels, to no avail. Second, the trial court’s statements disclose that it has made the choice of values that should be made by the jury, which is to say, the court’s opinion depends upon the unexpressed assumption that appellants’ objections to the Shippingport Power Plant are groundless.
Suppose that instead of rejecting appellants’ offer of proof, the court had permitted appellants to call the witnesses they wished to call. Suppose further that these witnesses had testified, without contradiction, and with the most unequivocal documentation, drawn from the plant’s own records, that at any given moment the plant might
In forming an opinion of appellants’ motives, the trial court assumed a power properly exercisable only by a jury. We should not be surprised if the jury, had it had the opportunity to hear appellants’ evidence, would have been as unpersuaded by appellant’s defense as was the trial court, and if that had occurred, we should have no hesitancy in affirming appellants’ sentences. But the jury didn’t hear the evidence. And it should have. As has been well said:
Ordinarily the question here involved is one of fact to be determined by the jury. As was said in Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N.J.L. 714:
This justification, therefore, under a plea of necessity is always a question of fact to be tried by a jury and settled by their verdict, unless the sovereign authority shall have constitutionally provided some other mode. This, of course, must be taken to mean that where
there is evidence tending to establish such justification, its weight and sufficiency are for the jury, and the Court may pass upon it as a matter of law only where evidence is wholly wanting and may exclude proof of a given state of facts only when that state of facts could not in any event warrant the interposition of this plea.
State v. Wooten, Crim. No. 2685 (Cochise Cty. Ariz., Sept. 13, 1919) (unreported), reproduced in Comment, The Law of Necessity and the Bisbee Deportation Case, 3 Ariz.L. Rev. 264, at 273 (1961).
See also Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115, 133, 14 L.Ed. 75 (1851) (question whether danger existed was for jury); Commonwealth v. Blodgett, 53 Mass. (12 Met.) 56,
2
So far we have assumed that in defining the defense of justification, Section 503 of the Crimes Code means just what it says: that the actor must reasonably believe his conduct “to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil,” and that the harm or evil sought to be avoided must be “greater than that sought to be prevented.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503. The trial court, however, held that appellants failed to satisfy the requirements of the common law defense of necessity. Thus, relying on State v. Marley, 54 Haw. 450, 509 P.2d 1095 (1973), the trial court states that appellants were required to, but did not, show “imminence of the harm to be avoided” and “a direct causal relationship or nexus between [their] actions and avoidance of anticipated harm.” Slip op. at 6.
We acknowledge that the common law is sometimes helpful in solving problems of statutory construction. But see 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 107(b) (abolishing common law crimes). Settled principle, however, precludes us from referring to the common law in construing a criminal statute so as to give it a meaning less favorable to the accused than do the plain terms of the statute. For we must construe a criminal statute narrowly, which is to say, in favor of the accused. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(b); Commonwealth v. Duncan, 456 Pa. 495, 321 A.2d 917 (1974); Commonwealth v. Ashford, 263 Pa.Super. 100, 397 A.2d 420 (1979); Commonwealth v. Darush, 256 Pa.Super. 344, 389 A.2d 1156 (1978). As the Supreme Court has said in Commonwealth v. Exler, 243 Pa. 155, 162-63, 89 A. 968, 971 (1914): “[W]hen a criminal statute calls for construction it is not the construction that is supported by the greater reason that is to prevail, but that one which, if reasonable, operates
For our part, we find the common law unclear. Although State v. Marley, supra, does indeed describe the common law defense of necessity as the trial court says, we are not persuaded that the requirements that the harm be imminent and that “a direct causal relationship or nexus [exist] between the defendants’ actions and avoidance of anticipated harm” are “prerequisites to the defense of necessity.” For the defense has been described much more generally. Thus the United States Supreme Court has not insisted upon proof of “a direct causal relationship or nexus.” Instead, in deciding whether necessity was shown, the Court has examined the reasonableness of the actor’s conduct as that appears in light of all of the circumstances, stating in Mitchell v. Harmony, supra that:
In deciding upon this necessity, however, the state of the facts, as they appeared to the officer at the time he acted, must govern the decision; for he must necessarily act upon the information of others as well as his own observation. And if, with such information as he had a right to rely upon, there is reasonable ground for believing that the peril is immediate and menacing, or the necessity urgent, he is justified in acting upon it; and the discovery afterwards that it was false or erroneous, will not make him a trespasser. But it is not sufficient to show that he exercised an honest judgment, and took the property to promote the public service; he must show by proof the nature and character of the emergency, such as he had reasonable grounds to believe it to be, and it is then for a jury to say, whether it was so pressing as not to admit of delay; and the occasion such, according to the*81 information upon which he acted, that private rights must for the time give way to the common and public good. 54 U.S. at 135.
Similarly, other cases manifest concern that the actor’s conduct be proportionate to the emergency — that no greater force be used than is necessary to meet the danger, and that the consequences of a course of action be considered. The case in which the defendant had destroyed buildings adjoining a burning structure was a typical one in which the necessity defense was invoked at common law. See, e.g., Hale v. Lawrence, supra. See also Model Penal Code § 3.02, Comment, collecting cases. In such a case, had the defendant destroyed buildings several blocks away from the ■burning structure, the sincerity of his belief that his actions were necessary to protect the neighborhood, and hence the reasonableness of his conduct in meeting the danger, might well be questioned. Aldrich v. Wright, supra, in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the defendant could assert the necessity defense when he killed minks out of season in violation of a statute, to save his geese, provides another illustration:
There is a great difference between an attack made upon A by B, and an attack made upon him by B’s dog. On A’s side, the consequences of his being killed by B, and the consequences of being killed by B’s dog, may not be materially different. But on the other side, the consequences of his defending himself by killing B and the consequences of his defending himself by killing B’s dog, regarded from a human point of view which is the one adopted by human law, are very different. The difference in the common-law values of the lives destroyed exhibits the reasonableness of adjusting the quality, quantity, and time of defensive force with some reference to consequences.
Aldrich v. Wright, supra at 405.
Nor were the common law cases concerned exclusively with simple emergency situations, such as the case of a burning building, as some courts have suggested. See, e.g.,
In any event, this case does not require us to decide just what were the requirements of the common law. For the point is, not what the common law is, but what our statutory law is. And under our statutory law — Sections 502 and 503 of the Crimes Code — appellants were not required to prove what the trial court held they were. They were only required to prove that they reasonably believed their conduct “to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil,” and that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided ... [was] greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining [their conduct as criminal trespass].” The trial court’s imposition of additional requirements, with the consequent rejection of appellants’ offer of proof, was therefore error.
Nonviolence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non-co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that*84 can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the judge, is either to resign your post, and thus dissociate yourself from evil if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public weal.
Gandhi, A Plea for the Severest Penalty Upon Conviction for Sedition, March 23, 1922, reprinted in The Law as Literature 459, 465-66 (E. London ed. 1960).
Appellants’ position is not that they have broken the law, but that their conduct was permitted by the law, specifically, by Section 503 of the Crimes Code.
The distinction between civil disobedience and justification has been noted by others. For example, commenting upon United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), and other similar cases in which the defendants had destroyed selective service records, Arnolds and Garland observe:
Although in the above cases the protestors claimed they were destroying property to save lives, they sought to convince the jury that the symbolic destruction of property in which the defendants engaged was justified as a protest against an illegal war. Such protestors often speak of obeying a higher moral law or their conscience. To this argument the court in United States v. Moylan responded that the defendants’ motivation and sincere belief that they were breaking the law in a good cause is not acceptable as a legal defense or justification. The court stated that “[i]t implies no disparagement of their idealism to say that society will not tolerate the means they chose to register their opposition to the war.”
Yet this response seems rather to beg the question. Mere subjective good motive, as where one acts purely on a religious belief, is no defense to a criminal act. Wheth*85 er society will consider a particular form of opposition to its government’s policies justified is a different question, and one that can really only be answered by the jury which acts as the spokesman for society.
Arnolds & Garland, supra at 300-01 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
United States v. Best, 476 F.Supp. 34 (D.Colo.1974), relied upon and is similar to Moylan. There the defendants said that “they were forced to trespass because of some overpowering force which mandated their violation of the criminal law.” Id. at 42. See also United States v. Cullen, 454 F.2d 386 (7th Cir.1971) (defendant’s testimony of compulsion limited to religious beliefs). Appellants, however,, do not claim to have acted under the compulsion of any religious belief, individual standard, or subjective good motive, but on the basis of objective facts. While some of appellants’ remarks at trial suggest that they engaged in civil disobedience, their claim, as their offer of proof makes plain, was that expert testimony and documentary evidence would have shown that the Shippingport plant continuously released low level radiation that was causing cancer, and was so designed as to threaten a catastrophic accident, and, further, that they reasonably believed their conduct necessary to avoid a harm greater than that sought to be prevented by the law making it a crime. As Arnolds and Garland say, the question raised by that claim “can really only be answered by the jury which acts as the spokesman for society.”
To characterize appellants’ trespass an act of civil disobedience confuses the effect of an act with its legal nature. To be sure, a trespass committed under religious, or other individual moral, compulsion may have the same effect as a trespass committed under claim of legal justification: both may lead to “a heightened public awareness” of a particular situation. But that does not mean that the legal nature of the two acts is the same. A kills X, and B kills Y. The effect of the act of each is the same, but it cannot be determined whether each, or either, is a murderer without
3
The principal basis of the trial court’s rejection of appellant’s offer of proof appears to have been its “finding that both Congress and the State legislatures have promulgated legislation dealing in detail with the production of nuclear energy, expressing the clear intent to maintain such operations as the Shippingport Power Plant, subject to strict governmental control and regulation.” Slip op. at 4-5. Thus the court states: “18 C.P.S.A. § 503(a)(3) plainly dictates that we must accept the clear legislative intent expressed [in federal and state regulation regulating nuclear power] and assume that Congress and the State Legislature do not intend that private citizens make individual determinations regarding the wisdom of operating nuclear power plants.” Slip op. at 5. We have concluded, however, that the defense of justification has not been preempted.
So far it has been necessary only to consider Section 503(a) down through subsection (1) — the subsection that requires that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided” must be “greater than that sought to be prevented.” However, in order to address the trial court’s conclusion that subsection (a)(1) has been pre-empted by nuclear power legislation, it is necessary to examine subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Section 503, for these subsections specify requirements in addition to the requirements specified in Section 503(a)(1). Before conduct may be found justifiable, it must appear that
(2) neither this title nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific • situation involved; and
*87 (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification does not otherwise plainly appear. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503(a)(2) and (a)(3).
We may start with an examination of Section 503(a)(2). For it and Section 503(a)(3) are clearly related, and whenever we construe one section of a statute, we must read it, not by itself, but with reference to, and in the light of, other sections of the statute. See In re Interest of Jones, 286 Pa.Super. 574, 429 A.2d 671 (1981).
Section 503(a)(2) specifies two requirements that must be satisfied, if justification is to be proved: the Crimes Code (“this title”) must not “provide[] exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved;” and neither may any “other law defining the offense [that the defendant pleading justification is charged with committing].” Here, both requirements are satisfied. The Crimes Code does provide “exceptions or defenses” to criminal trespass — the crime that appellants were charged with committing. But none of these exceptions or defenses “deal[s] with the specific situation involved.”
Section 503(a)(3) specifies still another requirement that must be satisfied, if justification is to be proved: “a legislative purpose to exclude the justification does not otherwise plainly appear.” The question that arises in construing this requirement is, What does “otherwise” mean? When Sec
Together; Sections 503(a)(2) and (a)(3) provide four ways by which one may find a legislative purpose to preclude the defense of justification. First, the Crimes Code may provide “exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved.” Second, some “other law defining the offense” may provide such exceptions or defenses. Third, if no such exceptions or defenses appear in the Crimes Code, a legislative purpose to preclude the defense of justification may nevertheless “otherwise plainly appear” in the Code. And fourth, if no such exceptions or defenses appear in some “other law defining the offense,” a legislative purpose to preclude the defense of justification may nevertheless “otherwise plainly appear” in such other law. In other words: the defense of justification is precluded only if a legislative purpose to preclude it is found in the criminal statute itself.
This conclusion is consistent with commentary:
The defense of necessity is available only in situations wherein the legislature has not itself, in its criminal statute, made a determination of values. If it has done so, its decision governs. Thus the legislature might, in its abortion statute, expressly provide that the crime is not committed if the abortion is performed to save the mother’s life; under such a statute there would be no need for courts to speculate about the relative value of preserving the fetus and safeguarding the mother’s life. Conversely the abortion statute might expressly (or by its legislative history) provide that the crime is committed even when the abortion is performed to save the mother’s life; here too the legislature has made a determination of values and by its decision thereon foreclosed the possibility of the defense that the abortion was necessary to save life. But if the abortion statute (even when read in the light of its legislative history) is silent upon the matter, then the question of the defense of necessity is open, and*89 courts can properly consider the relative merits of preserving the fetus and saving the mother.
LaFave & Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 382 (1972) (footnotes omitted).
See also Model Penal Code § 3.02 supra, Comment at 6 (giving same example).
Accordingly, it is apparent that here, the requirements of Section 503(a)(3) have been satisfied. For a legislative purpose to preclude the defense of justification to a charge of criminal trespass does not “otherwise ... appear,” “plainly” or in any other way, either in the Crimes Code or in any “other law defining the offense .[of criminal trespass]” (as already mentioned, there is no such “other law”).
The trial court does not consider Section 503(a)(2). Focusing only on Section 503(a)(3), the court construes “otherwise plainly appear” to mean that a legislative purpose to preclude the defense of justification may be found anywhere — not only in the Crimes Code (where the court evidently concedes it does not exist), nor in any “other law defining the offense” (the court evidently concedes that there is no such “other law”), but in any statute, civil or criminal, enacted at any time, before or after the Crimes Code, and not only by the General Assembly but also by the Congress. This construction is in our opinion contrary to settled principle. It is contrary to the principle that whenever we construe one section of a statute — here, Section 503(a)(3) — we must read it, not by itself, but with reference to, and in light of, other sections — here, Section 503(a)(2). In re Interest of Jones, supra. Even more important, it is contrary to the principle that, as part of a penal statute, the phrase “otherwise plainly appear” must be narrowly construed, in appellants’ favor. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(b); Commonwealth v. Duncan, supra; Commonwealth v. Ashford, supra; Commonwealth v. Darush, supra. Here, a narrow construction of the phrase “otherwise plainly appear” is doubly required because the phrase is part of a statute making a defense available to one accused of crime;
Having concluded that the phrase “otherwise plainly appear” permits reference to any statute, civil or criminal, enacted at any time, by either the General Assembly or the Congress, the trial court refers generally to two sets of statutes: federal legislation regulating the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and state legislation encouraging the development and use of atomic energy. The trial court did not say which section of which statute “plainly” shows that appellants are precluded from proving justification. Lacking the guidance of any specific citation, we have reviewed the Atomic Energy Development and Radiation Control Act, 73 P.S. §§ 1001-1501, cited generally by the court, and can find no section of the Act that suggests that in enacting it the General Assembly meant to displace any part of our criminal laws.
It is of course true that federal law has supremacy over state law, if the two are incompatible. U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2 (supremacy clause). But “[a]n unexpressed purpose of Congress to set aside statutes of the states is not lightly to be inferred and ought not to be implied where the legislative command, read in light of its legislative history, is
Accordingly, as an exercise of “historic police powers,” Section 503(a) of the Crimes Code has not been superseded by a federal nuclear power statute, unless that statute discloses a “clear and manifest purpose” to supesede it. Is such a purpose disclosed?
The Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011-2296, contains a declaration of policy directing “the development, use and control of atomic energy ... so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.” Id. § 2011. It contains provisions regulating the production of nuclear materials, id. §§ 2061-2112, and the military use of nuclear materials, id. §§ 2121-2122; it also contains licensing provisions, id. §§ 2131-2140. The Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5801-5891, contains a declaration of policy “that
In Lukus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., supra, this court considered whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1144, preempted provisions of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex. ERISA contained a provision explicitly preempting state law. Even so, we found no preemption of PHRA, for the purposes of the two statutes were different. We said: “In instances,
... where a state law relating primarily to matters not governed by ERISA only indirectly affected employee benefit plans, that is, in a way not in conflict with the purposes ERISA was designed to achieve, courts have usually held that the state law was not preempted.” Id. 276 Pa.Super. at 248, 419 A.2d at 439.
The same may be said here (indeed, it may be said even more forcefully, given that here, in contrast to ERISA, the nuclear power statutes contain no explicit preemptive provision operative here).
It is also useful to compare the federal nuclear power statutes with the federal labor relations statutes. By the Wagner Act, for example, Congress imposed a uniform regulatory scheme, based on collective bargaining and aimed at removing obstructions to the free flow of commerce that had developed as a result of labor and management conflicts. See 49 Stat. 449 (1935) (codified at 29 U.S.C. § 151 (1976)). While the federal labor relations statutes have therefore preempted many aspects of governmental regulation of labor-management relationships, they have not preempted all aspects. See, e.g., Sears Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 98 S.Ct. 1745, 56 L.Ed.2d 209 (1977) (state court may enforce local trespass law against union’s peaceful picketing when union has failed to invoke jurisdiction of National Labor Relations Board); Farmer v. Carpenters Local 25, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977) (union member may maintain action in state court for damages against union and union members for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1966) (union members may maintain action in state court against union representatives for breach of duty of fair representation). In Farmer v. Carpenters Local, supra, the Court stated:
We have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine to activity that otherwise falls within the scope of Garmon if that activity “was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act ... [or] touched interests so deeply rooted in local feelings and responsibility*94 that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of power to act”____ We also have refused to apply the pre-emption doctrine “where the particular rule of law sought to be invoked before another tribunal is so structured and administered that in virtually all instances, it is safe to presume that judicial supervision will not disserve the interests promoted by the federal labor statutes.” Id. 430 U.S. at 296-97, 97 S.Ct. at 1061. (quoting San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 246-47, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959); and Motor. Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 297-9.8, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 1923, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971).
This reasoning applies with particular force to the question whether the federal nuclear power statutes supersede the Commonwealth’s criminal statutes. For certainly the enactment and enforcement of the criminal law is “deeply rooted in local feelings and responsibility.” To set aside a state’s responsibility to enforce its criminal law — a responsibility that must include the allowance to an accused of every defense made available by the state’s law — would indeed require “compelling congressional direction.” There is no such direction in any of the federal nuclear power statutes.
We therefore conclude that the defense of justification provided in Section 503(a) of the Crimes Code has not been preempted either by state or federal legislation regulating nuclear power, and that in holding otherwise, the trial court erred.
4
So far, like the trial court, we have discussed only Section 503 of the Crimes Code, for that is the only section that has been argued to us. Appellants have not claimed, nor has the Commonwealth asserted that they should have claimed, the defense of justification provided in Section 510 of the Crimes Code, which states:
Conduct involving the appropriation, seizure or destruction of, damage to, intrusion on or interference with*95 property is justifiable under circumstances which would establish a defense of privilege in a civil action based thereon, unless:
(1) this title or the law defining the offense deals with the specific situation involved; or
(2) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed otherwise plainly appears.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 510.
Nevertheless, Section 510 is necessarily implicated in this case, for appellants’ conduct was “[cjonduct involving ... intrusion on ... property.” Appellants therefore had to meet the requirements of Section 510 as well as those of Section 503, to the extent the two are consistent. See Model Penal Code, Scope of Article 3, at 1 (Section 3.02 “states a principle applicable to all crimes; ... it must yield to more specific formulations dealing with the particular situation posed in any concrete case.”); id. § 3.01, Comment at 4 (Article 3 “is not designed to create privileges in the civil law.”). We have therefore considered appellants’ offer of proof in light of Section 510, and have concluded that the offer did meet its requirements.
Preliminarily it may be noted that the defense of justification provided in Section 510 has not been preempted by federal and state legislation regulating nuclear power, any more than Section 503 has been preempted. The question therefore becomes whether appellants’ conduct was justifiable under Section 510 because it occurred “under circumstances which would establish a defense of privilege in a civil action.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 510. In considering this question, Section 196 of the Second Restatement of Torts is instructive. It provides:
One is privileged to enter land in the possession of another if it is, or if the actor reasonably believes it to be, necessary for the purpose of averting an imminent public disaster.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 196 (1965).
In comment to Section 196 it is said that for the privilege to attach, the trespass must be committed “to protect against
The harms alleged in appellants’ offer of proof — that at any given moment the Shippingport Plant may break down and another Three Mile Island incident ensue, and that radiation from the plant is causing cancer and poisoning the reservoir — are comparable to the harms caused by “conflagration, flood, earthquake, or pestilence.” Thus appellants’ offer met the “public disaster” requirement of the Restatement. Did the offer meet the further requirement that the disaster be “imminent”?
In commenting on the requirement of Section 196 that the public disaster be “imminent,” it is said that “if the actor believes that the impending disaster may be prevented in some other way, and such is the fact, the entry is not privileged.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 196 Comment d. In contrast, under Section 503 of the Crimes Code, “[questions of immediacy and of alternatives have bearing, ... on the genuineness of a belief in the necessity.” Model Penal Code § 3.02 Comment at 10. Thus, if we read Section
The remaining requirement of Section 196 of the Restatement is that the actor “reasonably believes” in the necessity of his conduct. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 196 Comment d (“a reasonable belief on the part of the actor in the necessity of the entry for the prevention or mitigation of a public disaster is sufficient to justify the entry.”). And see Seavey v. Preble, 64 Me. 120 (1874) (reasonable belief that removing wallpaper from rooms where smallpox victims had been confined was necessary for public health). Under Sections 501 and 503(a)(1) the actor must “reasonably believe[]” his conduct “to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another,” and “the harm or evil sought to be avoided” must be “greater than that sought to be prevented.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 503. Again, therefore, by reading Section 196 of the Restatement into Section 510 of the Crimes Code we emerge with a standard of justification stated somewhat differently from the standard stated in Section 503. We do not, however, see any difference in substance, and we are satisfied that in meeting the requirement of Section 503 regarding reasonableness, appellants’ offer of proof also met the requirement of Section 510 (ie., Section 196 of the Restatement) regarding reasonableness.
Finally, in comment to Section 196 it is said that “the actor is subject to liability for harm done in the unreasonable exercise of the privilege.” Restatement (Second) of
We therefore conclude that appellants’ offer of proof met the requirements of Section 510, to such extent as these requirements may be more exacting than the requirements of Section 503, and that appellants should have been permitted to present their evidence to the jury.
The judgments of sentence are reversed and the case remanded for a new trial at which appellants shall be permitted to prove, if they can, that their conduct was justified.
. In his dissent Judge JOHNSON apparently opposes our reference to the offer's of proof made in appellants’ pretrial memorandum. Dissenting op. at 481, et seq. The dissent fails to note, however, that at a pretrial hearing immediately prior to the commencement of trial on November 29, 1979, legal argument was had on the memorandum and the Commonwealth's response to it. N.T. 1-9. After the jury was selected defense counsel requested a side bar conference at which the trial court denied the defense of justification. N.T. 40. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, and while the jury was in recess, appellants’ counsel made an oral offer of proof to the same effect as the offer they had made in their pre-trial memorandum. N.T. 60-78. The next day, prior to the court’s ruling on the offer, counsel submitted in addition a two-page document entitled "Defendants’ Offers of Proof,” listing nine points on which appellants planned to present evidence in support of their justification defense, as follows:
1. Hydrogen bubble generation in Pressurized Water Reactor creates danger of radiation release from containment vessel and consequent radiation damage to life in this area.
2. That low level radiation poses to defendants an immediate and continuing likelihood of cancerous illness to themselves and their families.
3. That low level radiation poses to defendants and others an immediate and continuing risk of birth defects and genetic deformities.
4. That the absence of an evacuation plan for Beaver County to meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, places handicapped and disabled persons in unavoidable danger.
5. That efforts before public boards and agencies are ineffective and have been exhausted with regard to the operating nuclear power plants at Shippingport.
6. That storage and transportation of nuclear wastes in and through this jurisdiction places your defendants and the public in immediate danger of irradiation.
*71 7. That the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered a freeze on nuclear plant construction and operating licenses.
8. That design defects common to all Pressurized Water Reactors present an immediate threat to your defendants of deadly and irreparable harm from a radiation release.
9. That protests as engaged in by your defendants have been and are effective in reducing the hazards of nuclear plants.
In addition, the offer listed the documentary evidence that appellants planned to introduce on the following points: (1) the "hazards of ‘normal’ plant operation;” (2) the "hazards of ‘abnormal’ plant operation;” (3) "the effectiveness of institutional measures to mitigate above hazards before regulatory and legislative bodies;” (4) "inadequacy and risk of current evacuation ‘plans;’ ” and (5) “[a] recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission order for freeze on nuclear plant construction and operation.” The offer was made part of the record at N.T. 82-83. This being the case, and since appellants’ offer to prove justification was denied by the trial court twice on the record — once after argument on the pretrial memorandum, and a second time after appellants made written offers to proof — we are unable to agree with the dissent’s view that appellants have failed to preserve the justification defense for appeal.
. In this regard, another court has suggested that if the defense of justification were permitted, courts would have to allow it in any case in which it is raised, regardless of the amount of damage done: If nuclear power presents the kind of threat to life and health contemplated by the compulsion statute, then if and when the Wolf Creek Plant becomes operational those who reasonably feel threatened by its presence would be legally justified in destroying it — by explosives or any other means available.
State v. Greene, 5 Kan.App.2d 698, 700, 623 P.2d 933, 936 (Kan.Ct. App.1981).
This appears also to be Judge JOHNSON’S view. Dissenting op. at 489. We find this suggestion unpersuasive, for the defense of justification should not be available to a defendant who has destroyed a plant, or, in one of the dissent’s examples, City Hall. In such a case the trial court should rule as a matter of law that the defendant could not have reasonably believed that destroying the plant was "necessary to avoid [the] harm or evil” sought to be avoided. See State v. Wooten, Crim. No. 2685 (Cochise Cty., Ariz. Sept. 13, 1919) (unreported), reproduced in Comment, The Law of Necessity and the Bisbee Deportation Case, 3 Ariz.L.Rev. 264, 276-277 (1961) (“if at any time the accused went beyond the limits of necessity, or of what reasonably appeared to be necessary, the necessity then ceased to exist, and thereafter criminal responsibility would attach to any further acts committed, ...); LaFave & Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 286-87 (1972). No doubt many cases may be supposed in which it would be clear as a matter of law that a reasonable belief could not be proved. But in this case that is not so.
. We are aware of other state court cases in which the defense of justification or necessity has been raised to a charge of criminal trespass at a nuclear power plant. Although these cases reach a
. Criminal trespass is defined by Sections 3503(a) and (b) of the Crimes Code. Section 3503(c) provides:
(c) Defenses. — It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(c).
. The Atomic Energy Development and Radiation Control Act, 73 P.S. §§ 1001-1501, empowers the Governor to enter into agreements with the federal government discontinuing federal supervision over certain aspects of radiation, id. § 1102. See Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2021(b) (authorizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enter such agreements). The Act also makes the Department of Health responsible for the control and regulation of sources of radiation, 73 P.S. § 1301, and provides for their licensing, id. § 1302, and record keeping, id. § 1303.
. A state’s power to control radiation hazards at nuclear power plants has been preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2021, unless the state executes an agreement with the federal government. See Northern States Power Company v. State of Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143 (8th Cir.1971), aff’d mem. 405 U.S. 1035, 92 S.Ct. 1307, 31 L.Ed.2d 576 (1972).