Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears argument that failure to give necessity instruction deprived Harriot of defense
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Harriot, defense counsel argued trial counsel’s failure to request a necessity instruction was prejudicial and amounted to ineffective assistance; the Commonwealth said the record lacks evidence of imminent danger and effective alternatives were available.
Chief Judge Vicky Henry called Commonwealth v. Harriot for argument on Jan. 7, 2026. Daniel DeMaria, arguing for appellant Stacy Harriot, told the panel that trial counsel “failed to request the [necessity] instruction” and that omission deprived Miss Harriot “of a substantial available defense,” raising an ineffective‑assistance claim on direct appeal.
DeMaria framed the facts as presenting a “clear and imminent danger”: Harriot arrived home near Garfield Avenue amid reports of gunshots, witnessed her husband struck and then…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
