duress defense in Pennsylvania

2025Id. at 43-47 (opining that Appellant’s evidence did not warrant the instruction because his testimony was that Melendez made a vague, conditional threat to kill him, and there was no evidence of a history of violence or intimidation in their relationship).5 Cf. Commonwealth v. Markman, 285, 916 A.2d 586, 607 (Pa. 2007) (holding the instruction was warranted where the appellant’s “trial testimony set out at length the basis for her claim of duress, including that [her co-defendant] repeatedly battered her and placed a knife to her throat or side and threatened her with death if she did not do a

2022See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/14/22, at 22 (citing Markman, 916 A.2d at 607 ); see also DeMarco, 809 A.2d at 262 (holding that once a defendant presents evidence in support of a duress defense, the trial court must instruct the jury on duress).

2022See PCRA Court Opinion, 3/14/22, at 22 (citing Markman, 916 A.2d at 607 ); see also DeMarco, 809 A.2d at 262 (holding that once a defendant presents evidence in support of a duress defense, the trial court must instruct the jury on duress).

2021See Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 809 A.2d 256, 261-62 (Pa. 2002) (“[I]n order to establish the duress defense in this Commonwealth, there must be evidence that: (1) there was a use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against the defendant or another person; and (2) the use of, or threat to use, unlawful force was of such a nature that a person of reasonable firmness in the defendant's situation would have been unable to resist it. … [U]nlike under the common law rule, the force or threatened force does not need to be of present and impending death or serious bodily injury.”).

2016By contrast, in Commonwealth v. Pelzer, 612 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1992), our Supreme Court held the defendant was not entitled to a duress instruction in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of a sixteen-year-old boy, Alexander Porter, by the appellant and two cohorts, including Henry Daniels.

2007This conclusion is in harmony with Commonwealth v. Pelzer, 531 Pa. 235 , 612 A.2d 407 (1992) (plurality opinion), where the opinion announcing the judgment of the Court suggested that a defendant may, in an appropriate case, avail himself of the duress defense as to a charge of first-degree murder.

2010See Markman, supra. "The elements which must be shown to establish a duress defense are: (1) an immediate or imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) a well grounded or reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out; and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm except by committing the criminal act.” Commonwealth v. Baskerville, 452 Pa.Super. 82 , 681 A.2d 195, 200 (1996). 6 .

2010See Markman, supra. "The elements which must be shown to establish a duress defense are: (1) an immediate or imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) a well grounded or reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out; and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm except by committing the criminal act.” Commonwealth v. Baskerville, 452 Pa.Super. 82 , 681 A.2d 195, 200 (1996). 6 .

2002While in its opinion, the Berger court did quote a portion of the Superior Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Morningwake, 407 Pa.Super. 129 , 595 A.2d 158 (1991), which set forth the common law test for duress, the Berger court ultimately concluded that the duress defense was not viable based on Section 309.

2002While in its opinion, the Berger court did quote a portion of the Superior Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Morningwake, 407 Pa.Super. 129 , 595 A.2d 158 (1991), which set forth the common law test for duress, the Berger court ultimately concluded that the duress defense was not viable based on Section 309.

2007Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Berger, 417 Pa.Super. 473 , 612 A.2d 1037 (1992), relied upon by the trial court here, the Superior Court found that the defendant was not entitled to raise the duress defense where it was uncontested that she stayed in her boyfriend's apartment for several hours while he (at her suggestion) left the apartment in search of a victim to bring back and kill.

2007Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Berger, 417 Pa.Super. 473 , 612 A.2d 1037 (1992), relied upon by the trial court here, the Superior Court found that the defendant was not entitled to raise the duress defense where it was uncontested that she stayed in her boyfriend's apartment for several hours while he (at her suggestion) left the apartment in search of a victim to bring back and kill.

2022See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (explaining a petitioner does not satisfy the “newly discovered ____________________________________________ 6 The elements necessary to establish the duress defense are: immediate or imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; well-grounded or reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out; and no reasonable opportunity to escape threatened harm except by committing the criminal act.

2022In Commonwealth v. Martinez, we reiterated that “[a]n express or specific threat is not necessary to sustain a conviction for terroristic threats.” 153 A.3d 1025, 1028 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2022See also Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607, 621 (Pa. 2012) (stating that although testimony at trial indicated the appellant’s history of abuse led the appellant to fear rejection by her co-defendant, it did not indicate it led her to fear physical harm by the co-defendant, so there was therefore no threat of force which would implicate the duress defense).

2019See Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 720 A.2d 693, 701 (Pa. 1998). - 15 - J-S18010-19 The lion’s share of Appellant’s ineffectiveness claims relate to trial counsel, including claims that he was allegedly ineffective for: (1) not communicating a plea offer from the Commonwealth to Appellant; (2) being under the influence of alcohol during the trial; (3) conceding Appellant’s guilt to the jury during his closing arguments; (4) failing to call various witnesses requested by Appellant; (5) stipulating to the testimony of Amanda Bowen and not challenging her competency; (6) pursuing a duress defense rega

2018See id. (a prosecutor's accurately recalling witness testimony and inviting jurors to draw reasonable inferences therefrom does not constitute prosecutorial misconduct). 3 Pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 309(a), a defendant may assert the defense of duress where "the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute an offense because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist." The Court previously discussed Craig's entitlement to a d

2017Com. v. Bros., 597 A.2d 1164, 1167 (Pa. Super. 1991).

2017However, my review of the case law finds precedent for a duress defense and accompanying jury instruction under similar circumstances in other jurisdictions, although I recognize that this is an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania.1 1 In Commonwealth v. Valcarel, 94 A.3d 397, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014), this Court recognized that “the issue of duress as a defense to possessing a *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

2017However, my review of the case law finds precedent for a duress defense and accompanying jury instruction under similar circumstances in other jurisdictions, although I recognize that this is an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania.1 1 In Commonwealth v. Valcarel, 94 A.3d 397, 400 (Pa. Super. 2014), this Court recognized that “the issue of duress as a defense to possessing a *Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

2015“Generally, where matters of strategy and tactics are concerned, counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective if he chose a particular course that had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests.” Commonwealth v. Koehler, 36 A.3d 121, 132 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).

2015Cf. Commonwealth v. Holmes, 79 A.3d 562, 575 (Pa. 2013) (“A decision of th[e Supreme] Court has binding effect if a majority of the participating Justices joined the opinion.”) (emphasis added). - 16 - J-S19008-15 pursuing a duress defense.

2007See Commonwealth v. Swing, 409 Pa. 241, 245 , 186 A.2d 24, 26 (1962) (“Where a decision rests on two or more grounds equally valid, none may be relegated to the inferior status of obiter dictum.”). 15 A. Duress instruction First, Appellant maintains that the trial court erroneously refused her request for a jury instruction on the defense of duress.

2007See Commonwealth v. Swing, 409 Pa. 241, 245 , 186 A.2d 24, 26 (1962) (“Where a decision rests on two or more grounds equally valid, none may be relegated to the inferior status of obiter dictum.”). 15 A. Duress instruction First, Appellant maintains that the trial court erroneously refused her request for a jury instruction on the defense of duress.

2007For example, the court in People v. Anderson, 28 Cal.4th 767 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587 , 50 P.3d 368, 374 (2002), suggested that the duress defense may be unavailable to a person who joins a street gang or prison gang and is then coerced to commit a crime.

2007For example, the court in People v. Anderson, 28 Cal.4th 767 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587 , 50 P.3d 368, 374 (2002), suggested that the duress defense may be unavailable to a person who joins a street gang or prison gang and is then coerced to commit a crime.

2007See also Williams v. State, 101 Md.App. 408 , 646 A.2d 1101, 1110 (1994) (finding that, because of defendant's voluntary involvement with a drug ring, he could not raise the duress defense although he was abducted by three men and coerced to engage in criminal activity to repay a drug debt).

2007See also Williams v. State, 101 Md.App. 408 , 646 A.2d 1101, 1110 (1994) (finding that, because of defendant's voluntary involvement with a drug ring, he could not raise the duress defense although he was abducted by three men and coerced to engage in criminal activity to repay a drug debt).

1996Commonwealth v. Martin, 346 Pa.Super. 129, 142 , 499 A.2d 344, 351 (1985) instructs that' unless appellant can show that counsel interfered with his freedom to decide to testify or unless appellant can point to specific advice of counsel so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision to testify, appellant cannot succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

1996Commonwealth v. Martin, 346 Pa.Super. 129, 142 , 499 A.2d 344, 351 (1985) instructs that' unless appellant can show that counsel interfered with his freedom to decide to testify or unless appellant can point to specific advice of counsel so unreasonable as to vitiate a knowing and intelligent decision to testify, appellant cannot succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.