Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 309 (2026)

Duress.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 309. Duress.

(a) General rule.--It is a defense that 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.

(b) Exception.--The defense provided by subsection (a) of this section is unavailable if the actor 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.

Cross References. Section 309 is referred to in section 9711 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Demarco, 809 A.2d 256 (Pa. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Demarco, 809 A.2d 256 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 14× “Based on its receipt of the report, which Appellant planned to admit into evidence at his trial, on September 13, 1999, the day before Appellant's trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine requesting that the trial court preclude Appellant from presenting any evidence…”

Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007). · cites it 6× “ The defense provided by subsection (a) of this section is unavailable if the actor 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…”

Commonwealth v. Baumhammers, 960 A.2d 59 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 2× “ictions;" "(2) The defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;" "(3) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired;" "(5) The defendant…”

United States v. Houston, 648 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “at 1115-16 ; see also 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 309 (b). Regarding the VICAR murder charges controlled by federal law, the district court assumed, without deciding, that duress was available as a defense but held that Bridgewater and Houston had failed to make a prima facie case for…”

Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009). · cites it 2× “" 18 Pa.C.S. § 309(a). Upon learning Markman intended to show she acted under duress as the result of appellant's abuse, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the severance denial, arguing he would be prejudiced by evidence of his abuse of Markman.”

Commonwealth v. Hicks, M., Aplt., 208 A.3d 916 (Pa. 2019). “See generally 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 309, 505. Rather, we merely hold that, with respect to the conduct at issue-in which hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians are licensed to engage lawfully, see supra n.”

Commonwealth v. Ford, 809 A.2d 325 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 2× “(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution under 18 Pa. C.S. § 309 (relating to duress), or acted under the substantial domination of another person.”

Commonwealth v. Peterkin, 513 A.2d 373 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 2× “(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 309 (relating to duress), or acted under the substantial domination of another person.”

Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012). “18 Pa.C.S. § 309(a). . Although Appellant also refers to another defense expert, Neil H.”

Commonwealth v. Terry, 521 A.2d 398 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 2× “(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 309 (relating to duress), or acted under the substantial domination of another person.”

Commonwealth v. Brown, 987 A.2d 699 (Pa. 2009). · cites it 2× “(5) The defendant acted under extreme duress, although not such duress as to constitute a defense to prosecution under 18 Pa. C.S. § 309 (relating to duress), or acted under the substantial domination of another person.”

Commonwealth v. Stanley, 401 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979). · cites it 2× “While of novel inquiry in Pennsylvania, courts in other jurisdictions have determined that the defense should be recognized, although they have disagreed at to what constitutes duress.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 309(a) — 16 cases

Commonwealth v. Housman, 986 A.2d 822 (Pa. 2009). “" 18 Pa.C.S. § 309(a). Upon learning Markman intended to show she acted under duress as the result of appellant's abuse, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the severance denial, arguing he would be prejudiced by evidence of his abuse of Markman.”

Commonwealth v. King, 57 A.3d 607 (Pa. 2012). “18 Pa.C.S. § 309(a). . Although Appellant also refers to another defense expert, Neil H.”

United States v. Houston, 648 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2011). “at 1115-16 ; see also 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 309 (b). Regarding the VICAR murder charges controlled by federal law, the district court assumed, without deciding, that duress was available as a defense but held that Bridgewater and Houston had failed to make a prima facie case for…”

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 340 A.2d 440 (Pa. 1975).

Commonwealth v. Kyslinger, 484 A.2d 389 (Pa. 1984).

— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 309(b) — 9 cases

Commonwealth v. Demarco, 809 A.2d 256 (Pa. 2002). “Based on its receipt of the report, which Appellant planned to admit into evidence at his trial, on September 13, 1999, the day before Appellant's trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion in limine requesting that the trial court preclude Appellant from presenting any evidence…”

Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007). “ The defense provided by subsection (a) of this section is unavailable if the actor 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…”

Commonwealth v. Horton, 644 A.2d 181 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994).

United States v. Slocum, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

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.