instruction on the affirmative defense (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

instruction on the affirmative defense in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
People v. McKinney green
michctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2017“To merit an instruction on the affirmative defense of duress, a defendant must establish a prima facie case of the elements of duress.” People v McKinney, 258 Mich App 157, 164 ; 670 NW2d 254 (2003).

2017“To merit an instruction on the affirmative defense of duress, a defendant must establish a prima facie case of the elements of duress.” People v McKinney, 258 Mich App 157, 164 ; 670 NW2d 254 (2003).

42015–2017
People v. Henderson red
michctapp · 2014
2 sentences

2017Duress occurs when: A) The threatening conduct was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm; B) The conduct in fact caused such fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant; C) The fear or duress was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged act; and D) The defendant committed the act to avoid the threatened harm. [Henderson, 306 Mich App at 4-5 .] “A threat of future injury is not sufficient; rather, the threatening conduct or act of compulsion must be present, imminent, and impending . . .

2017Duress occurs when: A) The threatening conduct was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm; B) The conduct in fact caused such fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant; C) The fear or duress was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged act; and D) The defendant committed the act to avoid the threatened harm. [Henderson, 306 Mich App at 4-5 .] “A threat of future injury is not sufficient; rather, the threatening conduct or act of compulsion must be present, imminent, and impending . . .

32016–2017
People v. Lemons green
mich · 1997
2 sentences

2016A jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress is appropriate if the defendant produces sufficient evidence that: “A) The threatening conduct was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm; B) The conduct in fact caused such fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant; C) The fear or duress was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged act; and D) The defendant committed the act to avoid the threatened harm.” [People v Henderson, 306 Mich App 1, 4-5 ; 854 NW2d 234 (2014), quoting Lemo

2015To establish a prime facie case of duress, the defendant must introduce evidence to allow the jury to conclude the following: A) The threatening conduct was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm; B) The conduct in fact caused such fear of death or serious bodily harm in the mind of the defendant; C) The fear or duress was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the alleged act; and D) The defendant committed the act to avoid the threatened harm. [People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 246-247 ; 562 NW2d 447 (1997).] Where the d

32003–2016

Where else courts name it

OH 11 (1993–2024) CO 9 (1987–2020) NY 7 (2005–2020) IL 6 (1981–2021) MI 5 (2003–2017) WA 5 (2012–2021) NJ 4 (2010–2024) TX 4 (1987–2018) CT 2 (1997–2026) FL 2 (1988–2017) GA 2 (2014–2014) DC 2 (1992–2007) NM 2 (2016–2019) IA 2 (2006–2006) NE 2 (2020–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check