State v. Harvill
234 P.3d 1166 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal defense of duress does not require an explicit threat; an implicit threat, communicated indirectly and creating a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm in the defendant's mind based on the totality of the circumstances, is sufficient to entitle a defendant to a jury instruction on the defense.
Facts:
- Joshua Harvill and Michael Nolte knew each other for several years through their work.
- Harvill, who was physically smaller than Nolte, was afraid of him due to Nolte's violent past, which included Nolte bragging about smashing a man's head with a beer bottle, stabbing another man, and injuring Harvill's brother.
- Over several days leading up to the incident, Nolte made 9 or 10 aggressive phone calls to Harvill, demanding that Harvill procure cocaine for him.
- Nolte used phrases like 'You gotta get me something' and 'You better get me some cocaine,' but never explicitly said 'or else' or directly threatened Harvill with harm for non-compliance.
- On the day of the transaction, Nolte made four more calls to Harvill, with the final calls occurring while Harvill was at a Chuck E. Cheese's restaurant with his family.
- Harvill testified that he feared Nolte would immediately come to the restaurant and harm him or his family members if he refused Nolte's demand.
- Believing he was under compulsion, Harvill arranged and completed a sale of cocaine to Nolte, which was a controlled buy set up by the Cowlitz County Sheriff's Office.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Joshua Harvill in Cowlitz County Superior Court (trial court) with unlawful delivery of cocaine.
- At trial, Harvill requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress, which the trial court denied on the grounds that there was no evidence of an explicit threat.
- The jury convicted Harvill.
- Harvill (appellant) appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by refusing the duress instruction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that any error in refusing the instruction was harmless.
- Harvill (petitioner) sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory defense of duress require evidence of an explicit, verbalized threat, or is evidence of an implicit threat, inferred from the aggressor's words, actions, and reputation, sufficient to entitle a defendant to a jury instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
No. The statutory defense of duress does not require an explicit threat; an implicit threat inferred from the surrounding circumstances is legally sufficient to warrant a jury instruction. The Washington statute defining 'threat' for the purposes of duress includes communications made 'directly or indirectly.' This language confirms that the legislature intended to encompass implicit threats that arise from the totality of the circumstances, including the history between the parties and the aggressor's known violent propensities. The core inquiry is whether the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm, and the jury should be permitted to evaluate the credibility and reasonableness of the defendant's claimed fear. The trial court's refusal to provide the instruction based on the lack of an explicit threat was an error of law and was not harmless, as the elements of duress are distinct from those of entrapment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'threat' element of the duress defense in Washington, lowering the evidentiary threshold for defendants to receive a jury instruction on the matter. The court firmly establishes that the defendant's subjective fear, provided it is objectively reasonable based on the circumstances, is the key inquiry. This precedent empowers the jury, rather than the judge, to weigh the credibility of a defendant's claimed fear in situations involving intimidation or a history of violence where overt threats are not made. The ruling will likely impact future cases involving coercion by making it easier for defendants to argue duress based on a pattern of conduct and reputation, rather than requiring proof of a specific, articulated threat.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Harvill