Final answer:
The necessity defense could be true for someone who trespasses to save a child or pet during a fire, as it justifies actions done to prevent greater harm. The situation must meet legal criteria, where the emergency is immediate, and no legal alternatives are available.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that the necessity defense could be used by a person who trespassed on private property during a fire to save a child or unattended pet is true. The necessity defense is a legal principle that may justify a defendant's actions if they are done to prevent a greater harm. In an emergency situation, where a person trespasses onto private property to save a life or prevent serious harm to others, including pets, this defense can be applied if the situation meets the legal criteria for necessity.
For the defense to be applicable, the emergency must be immediate, the action taken must be to prevent greater harm, and there must be no legal alternative to the action taken. In the situation described, where a person enters property uninvited to save a child or pet from a fire, the risk to life from the fire is likely to be considered a greater harm than the trespass.
As long as the trespasser's actions are directly linked to the goal of preventing this harm, and there were no legal alternatives available, courts may recognize the necessity defense. However, it is important to note that this defense is not absolute and its application can vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.