State v. Defendant
378 A. 2d 755, 74 NJ 421 (1977)
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of duress is unavailable for a criminal act unless the coercive threat is present, imminent, and impending, leaving the defendant with no reasonable opportunity to seek help from law enforcement or otherwise avoid committing the crime.
Facts:
- The Defendant, a chiropractor, was asked to participate in a conspiracy to defraud an insurance company by creating a false medical report.
- A co-defendant, 'Billy' Leonardo, called the Defendant three times demanding his participation.
- During the final call on a Friday, Leonardo threatened that if the Defendant did not supply the medical report, the Defendant and his wife would 'jump at shadows' when leaving the office.
- On the following Sunday, approximately two days after the threat, the Defendant delivered the false medical report.
Procedural Posture:
- The Defendant was prosecuted by the State for conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses in a New Jersey trial court.
- At trial, the judge refused to submit the defense of 'duress' to the jury.
- The Defendant was convicted of the charge.
- The Defendant, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, arguing that the trial court erred in withholding the duress defense from the jury.
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 defense of duress apply to a criminal act when the defendant commits the act approximately two days after receiving a threat, which provided an opportunity to seek help or avoid the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the defense of duress does not apply when the threat is not present, imminent, and impending. For duress to be a valid defense, the compulsion must be immediate and create a well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily harm, with no reasonable opportunity for the defendant to escape or seek help. The court reasoned that the two-day interval between Leonardo's threat on Friday and the Defendant's criminal act on Sunday provided ample opportunity for the Defendant to contact the police or simply refuse to commit the act. Because the threat was not 'present, imminent and impending,' the trial judge correctly held that the defense was unavailable to the Defendant.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict, high-bar requirements for the affirmative defense of duress in criminal law. It clarifies that a generalized or future threat is insufficient; the coercion must be immediate and the danger inescapable. The ruling firmly places an obligation on the defendant to avail themselves of any reasonable opportunity to avoid the criminal act, such as contacting law enforcement. This precedent ensures the defense is reserved for situations of true, unavoidable compulsion and prevents it from being used as a shield by defendants who had a viable, legal alternative.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Defendant (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"