In Werewolf by Night, our heroes Elsa Bloodstone and Jack Russell were trapped in the Bloodstone family mausoleum during the hunt of the Man-Thing. In order to escape, Elsa broke open the crypt of her Aunt Francis in order to escape. Were her actions desecration of a corpse and were they legally justified?
Members of the Bloodstone family were buried in a Westminster family crypt, which is a crypt that can house multiple bodies. “Crazy” Aunt Francis was interned in her crypt since her death in 1922. Elsa smashed the front of the crypt in order to remove 1) an arm; 2) a skull; 3) a weapon; and 4) keys, as Aunt Francis believed she would return from the dead.
The law has long recognized that disturbing a dead body as a crime. Multiple California laws protect corpses from the exact actions Elsa took on the corpse of Aunt Francis. Cal. Pen. Code § 594.35 states:
Every person is guilty of a crime and punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 or by imprisonment in a county jail for not exceeding one year, who maliciously does any of the following:
(a) Destroys, cuts, mutilates, effaces, or otherwise injures, tears down, or removes any tomb, monument, memorial, or marker in a cemetery, or any gate, door, fence, wall, post or railing, or any enclosure for the protection of a cemetery or mortuary or any property in a cemetery or mortuary.
(b) Obliterates any grave, vault, niche, or crypt.
(c) Destroys, cuts, breaks or injures any mortuary building or any building, statuary, or ornamentation within the limits of a cemetery.
(d) Disturbs, obstructs, detains or interferes with any person carrying or accompanying human remains to a cemetery or funeral establishment, or engaged in a funeral service, or an interment.
Elsa’s actions to open her aunt’s crypt in order to gain access to its contents are the type forbidden by § 594.35. However, was her desecration of a corpse legally justified by the necessity defense in order to save the Man-Thing from the hunters trying to kill him?
The necessity defense is a six-part test based on public policy for a greater harm to be stopped by a lesser violation of a law. The factors include:
1. The act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a significant evil;
2. There must have been no adequate alternative to the commission of the act;
3. The harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided;
4. The accused must entertain a good-faith belief that his act was necessary to prevent the greater harm;
5. Such belief must be objectively reasonable under all the circumstances; and
6. The accused must not have substantially contributed to the creation of the emergency.
People v. Heath, 207 Cal.App.3d 892, 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989), citing People v. Pena, 149 Cal.App.3d at pp. Supp. 25-26, fns. omitted.
Elsa’s action were justified by the necessity of assisting Jack Russell in saving the Man-Thing. First, the act of disturbing Aunt Francis’ grave was done to prevent the significant evil of killing Ted Sallis (Man-Thing); Second, there was no other way out of the mausoleum; Third, the harm of removing items from a crypt was not disproportionate to the harm of Ted Sallis being killed; Fourth, Elsa had a good-faith believe her actions were necessary to prevent the death of Sallis; Fifth, her belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances of trained monster hunters seeking to kill Sallis; and Sixth, Elsa did not contribute to the emergency of getting locked in the crypt or organizing the hunt.
The one problem for Elsa is she was willingly participating in the hunt, but she abandoned her participation after learning facts from Jack Russell.
Elsa Bloodstone could successfully argue her actions desecrating the century old corpse of her aunt were legally justified under the necessity defense to save the Man-Thing from being hunted to death.
