Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 2.7-3

The evidence in this case raises the defense of duress. The defense of duress applies to the

charge[s] of <insert applicable crimes> [and the lesser included offense[s] of <insert lesser

included offenses>.]

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

beyond a reasonable doubt each element of <insert applicable crimes and any lesser-included

offenses>, you must go on to consider whether or not the defendant acted under duress. In this

case you must consider this defense in connection with count[s] __ of the information.

A person’s actions that would otherwise be illegal are legally justified if (he/she) is acting under

duress. It is a complete defense to certain crimes, including <insert applicable crimes and any

lesser-included offenses>. When, as in this case, evidence of duress is introduced at trial, the

state must not only prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged to

obtain a conviction, but must also disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted

under duress.

1 If the state fails to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted

under duress, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert applicable crimes> despite the

fact that you have found the elements of (that crime / those crimes) proved beyond a reasonable

doubt. The defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever with respect to this defense.

The statute defining duress reads in pertinent part as follows:

in any prosecution for an offense, it shall be a defense that the defendant engaged in

the proscribed conduct because (he/she) was coerced by the use or threatened

imminent use of physical force upon (him/her) or a third person, which force or

threatened force a person of reasonable firmness in (his/her) situation would have

been unable to resist.

Factual predicate for claiming duress

The first thing you must determine is whether the defendant (intentionally / recklessly) placed

(himself/herself) in a situation in which it was probable that (he/she) would be subjected to

duress. <See Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1, and Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.> 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. If you find that the state has not

proved that the defendant (intentionally / recklessly) placed (himself/herself) in a situation in

which it was probable that (he/she) would be subjected to duress, then you should go on to

consider whether the defendant acted under duress.

The state must disprove at least one of the following elements to disprove the claim of duress.

Element 1 - Coercion

The first element is that the defendant was being coerced to act by the use or threat to use

imminent physical force against (him/her/another person) by <insert name of other person>.

The word “using” has its ordinary meaning, that is, the other person has already begun to use

force. The word “imminent” means that the person is about to use physical force at that time. It

does not encompass the possibility that an act of physical force may take place at some

unspecified future time.

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, a chance both

to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm, you must find that the

defendant was not under duress.2 If the defendant would have engaged in the criminal activity

whether or not there was a threat, then (his/her) actions were not caused by that threat.

Element 2 - Reasonableness of defendant’s conduct

The second element is that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances in

that a person of reasonable firmness under the same circumstances would have been unable to

resist the force or threatened force and would have acted as the defendant did. In assessing the

situation you may consider tangible factors that differentiate the defendant from the person

making the threat, such as size, strength, age, or health. You should also consider such things as

the seriousness of the threat, the nature of the impending harm being threatened, the

opportunities for escape, and the seriousness of the crime the defendant has committed.

In evaluating the defendant’s response to the threat, applying the standard of the “person of

reasonable firmness,” consider an ordinary person without serious mental and emotional defects.

A defendant’s personal timidity or lack of firmness in the face of intimidation does not serve as

the measure for his or her conduct under this second component of the defense. Community

expectations prevail in judging a defendant’s response to a threat when that response involves

engaging in criminal action. With the defense of duress, a defendant is neither held to a standard

of heroism, nor is the defendant allowed to rely on his or her idiosyncratic mental and emotional

weaknesses.

Conclusion

In summary, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

any of the elements of <insert applicable crimes>, you shall then find the defendant not guilty

and not consider the defense.

If, on the other hand, you unanimously find that all the elements of <insert applicable crimes

and any lesser included offenses> have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then

consider whether the defendant intentionally or recklessly put (himself/herself) in the situation.

If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable a doubt that the defendant did intentionally or

recklessly put (himself/herself) in the situation, you shall then find the defendant guilty and not

consider the defense.

If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable a doubt that the state has failed to prove that the

defendant intentionally or recklessly put (himself/herself) in the situation, you shall then consider

the defense of duress.

If you unanimously find that the state has disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of

the elements of the defense, you must reject that defense and find the defendant guilty.

If you unanimously find that the state has not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one

of the elements of the defense, then on the strength of that defense alone you must find the

defendant not guilty of <insert applicable crimes> despite the fact that you have found the

elements of (that crime / those crimes) proved beyond a reasonable doubt [and not consider any

of the lesser-included offenses].

1 State v. Fuller, 199 Conn. 273, 280 (1986); State v. Rouleau, 204 Conn. 240, 255 (1987);

General Statutes § 53a-12 (a).

2 United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 410, 100 S. Ct. 624, 62 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1980); State v.

Boone, 15 Conn. App. 34, 40-41, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 811 (1988).

3 See State v. Heinemann, 282 Conn. 281, 303 (2007) (discussing the objective reasonableness of

the defense).