Under Texas law, when can a person legally use "necessity" as a defense?

In Texas law, the defense of "necessity" is applicable when the harm that one seeks to avoid is greater than the harm caused by their conduct. This legal principle is rooted in the idea that an individual may justify their actions if they were aimed at preventing a greater evil or harm. The justification must demonstrate that the choice made was necessary and that the actions taken were reasonably directed towards averting a more significant threat or harm.

To invoke this defense, the individual must show that there was an imminent threat of harm and that their illegal conduct was the most reasonable response to avoid that harm. For example, if someone trespasses on property to escape a life-threatening situation, their actions may be justified under the necessity defense because they were attempting to prevent a greater harm—preserving their life.

The other options do not align with the legal framework for the necessity defense. Preventing minor inconveniences does not constitute a sufficient justification for harmful conduct. The necessity defense is not exclusively limited to emergencies involving other people, as it can apply to a range of situations where personal safety or significant harm is at stake. Emotional harm alone does not qualify as a basis for the necessity defense, as it focuses on preventing actual physical danger or harm rather than merely psychological distress.