In order to successfully assert the defense of necessity, the defendant must prove that they were acting under a threat of imminent harm, that they had no other reasonable option to avoid the harm, and that the harm they caused was less than the harm they were trying to prevent.

Self-defense is not a defense to necessity. This is because the harm caused by the defendant (killing another person) is not less than the harm the defendant was trying to prevent (being killed).

The defense of necessity is most closely related to the defense of self-defense. This is because both defenses involve a person acting to prevent a greater harm.

The nature of the harm the defendant caused is not relevant to the determination of whether the defense of necessity is successful. This is because the defense of necessity focuses on the harm the defendant was trying to prevent, not the harm the defendant caused.

In a jurisdiction that recognizes the defense of necessity, a successful assertion of the defense will typically result in the defendant being found not guilty or being sentenced to a lesser punishment. However, the defendant will not be required to pay restitution to the victim.