(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to himself or another.
(b) The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor intentionally or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. The defense is also unavailable if he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to establish culpability for the offense charged.
(c) It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his or her spouse, unless such compulsion would establish a defense under this section. The presumption that a woman is subject to compulsion when acting in the presence of her husband is abolished.
(d) The defense provided by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for:
(1) murder; or
(2) any killing of another under aggravated circumstances, as provided by Article 2 of Chapter 5 of this title.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §645; Acts 1979, No. 79-664, p. 1163, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case:
Neelley v. State, 494 So. 2d 669 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985).
Neelley v. State, 494 So. 2d 669 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985).
· cites it 5× “" Counsel stated that "when the evidence is in the State will prove its case, and we will prove that Judy Neelley lackedalthough we don't have to prove itwe will prove that Judy Neelley never had the intent to kill anyone.”
Smith v. State, 213 So. 3d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
“The appellant contends that the order in which the trial court gave its instructions prevented the jury from considering his defenses of intoxication (§ 13A-3-2) 15 and duress (§ 13A-3-30) until after it had resolved the question of guilt of the capital offense.”
Qualls v. State, 927 So. 2d 852 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“" § 13A-3-30(a), Ala.Code 1975. "`When evidence regarding alleged duress is in dispute, a question of fact is presented for the jury.”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “, Ala Code 13A-3-30 (“The defense [of duress] provided by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for (1) murder; or (2) any killing of another under aggravated circumstances”); Colo Rev Stat 18-1-708 (excluding the duress defense for Class 1 felonies, which under Colo Rev…”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 2× “, Ala Code 13A-3-30 (“The defense [of duress] provided by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for (1) murder; or (2) any killing of another under aggravated circumstances”); Colo Rev Stat 18-1-708 (excluding the duress defense for Class 1 felonies, which under Colo Rev…”
Flowers v. State, 922 So. 2d 938 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” Duress is defined in § 13A-3-30, Ala. Code 1975, as follows: “(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to himself or another.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-30(a) — 1 case
Qualls v. State, 927 So. 2d 852 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“" § 13A-3-30(a), Ala.Code 1975. "`When evidence regarding alleged duress is in dispute, a question of fact is presented for the jury.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-30(d) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022).
“, Ala Code 13A-3-30 (“The defense [of duress] provided by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for (1) murder; or (2) any killing of another under aggravated circumstances”); Colo Rev Stat 18-1-708 (excluding the duress defense for Class 1 felonies, which under Colo Rev…”
People of Michigan v. Theresa Marie Gafken (Mich. 2022).
“, Ala Code 13A-3-30 (“The defense [of duress] provided by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for (1) murder; or (2) any killing of another under aggravated circumstances”); Colo Rev Stat 18-1-708 (excluding the duress defense for Class 1 felonies, which under Colo Rev…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-30(d)(1) — 1 case
Neelley v. State, 494 So. 2d 669 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985).
“" Counsel stated that "when the evidence is in the State will prove its case, and we will prove that Judy Neelley lackedalthough we don't have to prove itwe will prove that Judy Neelley never had the intent to kill anyone.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-30(d)(2) — 1 case
Flowers v. State, 922 So. 2d 938 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“” Duress is defined in § 13A-3-30, Ala. Code 1975, as follows: “(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to himself or another.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.