Gabriella C. Zolezzi
Professor Barron: Criminal Law
Duress-985
NAME OF CASE: State v. Toscano COURT: SC NJ YEAR: 1977
SUBSTANTIVE SETTING- PRO HX- Charges: Conspiracy to obtain money by defrauding an insurance co. SC granted cert to see if duress is an affirmative defense
FACTS: D was threatened by Leonardo that he would hurt him and his wife if he did not help him in a fraudulent insurance claim. -
ISSUE: Whether duress is sufficient as a affirmative defense if the threat is not imminent?
PROCEDURAL HOLDING: Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
RULE(S) GOVERNING THE HOLDING: Duress shall be a defense to a crime other than murder if the defendant engaged in conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or 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.
RATIONALE (reasoning): D was in fear for his and his wife safety if he did not help Leonardo with the offense. Leonardo threatened him and his wife with physical harm which induced reasonable fear. At common law, the defense of duress was applicable only when the alleged coercion involved a use or threat of "present, imminent, and pending harm and of "such a nature as to induce a well grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done." Also when the threat is of future harm, the person has a duty to notify LE to escape the threat. However it is possible LE would not have been able to prevent the future harm.
Objective standard that the threat doesn't have to be you it can be someone close to you. A personable reasonable firmness could not withstand the pressure and believed that there was no way out.