Ala. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 13A-3-30

Duress Defense

One of the issues in this case is the defense of duress.

It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the alleged crime

because he/she was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or serious

physical injury to [himself/herself/another].

A person's actions that would otherwise be illegal ar e legally justified if he/she

acted under duress. It is a complete defense to certain crimes, including [insert charge

and any lesser-included offenses].

After you have considered all of the evidence in this case, if you find that the

State has proved bey ond a reasonable doubt each element of [insert charge and any

lesser-included offenses], you must then consider whether or not the defendant acted

under duress. The defense of duress applies to the charge(s) of [insert applicable

crimes].

To convict, the State, in addition to the elements of the crime charged, must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time of the commission of the alleged

crime, the defendant did not engage in the alleged criminal conduct because he was

compelled to do so by the th reat of imminent death or by the threat of serious physical

injury to [himself/herself/another].

A defendant acts under duress only, if at the time of the offense charged:

1. There was an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to [the

defendant/a family member of the defendant] if the defendant did not

[commit/participate in the commission of] the crime;

2. The defendant had a well-grounded fear that the threat of death or serious

bodily injury would be carried out; (AND)

3. The defendant ha d no reasonable alternative to violating the law by

avoiding the threatened harm.

The defendant must have been coerced to act by the use or threat to use

immediate physical force against [him/her/another person] by [insert name[s] of

other person(s)].

The defendant must have actually believed in and been frightened by the

likelihood of the threatened harm. If there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating

the law, for example, a chance to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the

threatened harm, you must find that the defendant was not under duress. If the

defendant would have engaged in the alleged criminal activity whether or not there was

a threat, then his/her actions were not caused by that threat.

[Read as appropriate- Intent or Recklessness]:

To convict, the State, in addition to the elements of the crime charged, must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when the crime happened, the defendant did not

commit the crime alleged because of duress.

However, the State is not requir ed to bear this burden of proof if the defendant

[intentionally/recklessly] put himself/herself in a situation in which it was probable that

he/she would be subjected to duress.

If you find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant [intentionally/recklessly] placed himself/herself in such a situation, then

he/she cannot claim that he/she acted under duress, and you need not consider the

defense.

[Read as appropriate - Negligence]

To convict, the State, in addition to the ele ments of the crime charged, must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when the crime happened, the defendant did not

commit the crime alleged because of duress.

However, the State is not required to disprove duress for a crime that requires

only proof of negligence if the defendant negligently put himself/herself in a situation in

which it was probable that he/she would be subjected to duress.

If you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant negligently placed himself/he rself in such a situation, then he/she cannot

claim that he/she acted under duress, and you need not consider the defense.