Alaska Stat. » Chapter 11.81
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 11.81.440 (2026)

Duress

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 11.81.440. Duress.
 (a) In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because the defendant was coerced to do so by the use of unlawful force upon the defendant or a third person, which force a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have been unable to resist.

 (b) The defense of duress is not available when one recklessly places oneself in a situation in which it is probable that one will be subject to duress.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2012 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 971 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 971 N.E.2d 783 (Mass. 2012). “See Alaska Stat. § 11.81.440 (LexisNexis 2010); Ark.”
Smith v. State, 229 P.3d 221 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" In other words, the defense of "duress" defined in AS 11.81.440(2) does not refer to situations where a person commits a crime because of overmastering emotion.”
Bell v. State, 658 P.2d 787 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “350 (defense of self, others and property); AS 11.81.440 (duress)). In addition, the code recognizes a partial defense to murder where the defendant acts in the heat of passion.”
Williams v. State, 646 A.2d 1101 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “On appeal, the court concluded that under Alaska Stat. § 11.81.440 (b), 4 duress is an affirmative defense and therefore the burden was on Walker to establish this defense.”
Degler v. State, 741 P.2d 659 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “*661 The defense of duress requires a showing that “the defendant was coerced to [commit the offense] by the use of unlawful force upon the defendant or a third person_” AS 11.81.440; Cleveland v. Anchorage, 631 P.”
Steve v. State, 875 P.2d 110 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “1983), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of AS 11.81.440(a), the statute which declares that a defendant must establish the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Taylor v. State, 710 P.2d 1019 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “320 or on the defense of duress, under AS 11.81.440. Nothing in the statutory use of the phrase "without lawful excuse” or in our interpretation of that phrase would limit a defendant’s ability to rely on other statutory defenses.”
Walker v. State, 674 P.2d 825 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “AS 11.81.440 provides that: Duress, (a) In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use of unlawful force upon him or a third person, which force a reasonable person…”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.440(2) — 1 case
Smith v. State, 229 P.3d 221 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “" In other words, the defense of "duress" defined in AS 11.81.440(2) does not refer to situations where a person commits a crime because of overmastering emotion.”
— Alaska Stat. § 11.81.440(a) — 3 cases
Smith v. State, 229 P.3d 221 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “" In other words, the defense of "duress" defined in AS 11.81.440(2) does not refer to situations where a person commits a crime because of overmastering emotion.”
Steve v. State, 875 P.2d 110 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “1983), the defendant challenged the constitutionality of AS 11.81.440(a), the statute which declares that a defendant must establish the defense of duress by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Bell v. State, 658 P.2d 787 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “350 (defense of self, others and property); AS 11.81.440 (duress)). In addition, the code recognizes a partial defense to murder where the defendant acts in the heat of passion.”
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.