T EX . P EN A L C ODE §9.22 (empha sis added). 1 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 1645 - 08

STE PH EN G I LB ER T , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

BRAZ OS CO UNTY K ELL ER , P . J. , f

i l ed a concurri ng opi ni on . Th e de fe ns e of

“ ne c e ssi ty” c on ta ins thr e e e le me nts : (1 ) t he a c tor re a so na bly be li eve s th e c on du c t is imm e diate ly ne c e ssa ry to a vo id imm ine nt h arm ; (2 ) t he de sir a bil ity and ur g e nc y of a vo idi ng the ha rm c le arl y outw e ig h, a c c or din g to ordinary standards of

rea sonableness, the harm soug ht to be preve nted by the law proscr ibing the c onduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to ex clude the justification claimed f or the conduc t does not otherwise plainly appear

. 1 The third ele ment was not met in appe llant’s case beca use a c laim that the defe ndant was c ompelledGILBERT CONCURRENCE – 2

See Id. , §8.05. 2 Id. , §8.05(c)

. 3 Id. , §8.05(a)

. 4 Id. , §8.05(d). 5 See id. 9.22(2) 6 Id. , §8.05(a) , (b). 7 to eng ag e in conduc t by

the use or thr eat of

forc e is something that the L eg islature plainly intended to be addr essed unde r the dure ss statute. The dures s s t at u t e ca

ref ully and exhaustively

define s when c ompulsion under the use or thr e a t of fo rc e wi ll e xcu se oth e rw ise c ri min a l c on du c t by the de fend ant
. I f t

he of fe ns e is n ot a 2 felony , the forc e or thre at of for ce must constitute compulsion of such a nature a s “to rende r a pe rson of re asonable firmness inca pable of resisting the pressure .” I f the off ense is a f elony , then the thre at 3 must be more substantial: t h e d ef endant must have e ng ag ed in the conduc t beca use “he was compelled to do so by

threat of imminent death or ser ious bodily injury to himself or another .” 4 M o r e o v e r , t h e e x c u s e p r o v i d e d u n d e r t h e d u r e s s s t a tu t e i s n o t a v a i l a

b l e “ i f t h e a c t o r

i n t e n t i o n a l l y, kn o w in g ly , o r r e c k le s s ly p la c e d h im s e lf in a s it u a ti o n in w h ic h it w a s p r o b a b le th a t he would be subjected to compulsion.” I n doing a ll of these thing s, the L eg islature has a lrea dy conducte d the 5 balanc ing te st that would be conducted by a jury under the second element of the ne cessity defe nse: that is, the L eg islature h as al rea dy balanc ed whe n “the de sirability and urg ency

of avoidingthe harm” cause d by the t hreatened use of forc e “c lear ly outweig h, acc ording to ordinary standards of

rea sonablene ss, the harm soug ht to be preve nted by the law pr oscribingthe conduc t.” 6 Moreove r, dure ss is an “af firmative de fense ,” meaningthat the def endant shoulder s the 7GILBERT CONCURRENCE – 3

Id. , §2.04(d). 8 Id. , § §9 .2 2 ( “ Con du c t is jus tif ie d if ” e le me nts of

ne c e ssi ty de fe ns e are me t.) , 9 .0 2 ( “ I t is 9 a def ense to prose cution that the conduc t in question is j ustified under this cha pter.” ). Id. , §2.03(d). 10 burden of proving duress by

a prepondera

nce of the evidence, while necessity is a “de fense ,” which 8 9

re qu ir e s an a c qu itt a l if

the jur y ha rb or s a re a so na ble do ub t on

the mat ter
. Al low inga ne c e ssi ty 10 de fe ns e wh e n th e e vid e nc e inv olv e s th e ty pe of c on du ct add res se d b y

the dure ss s tatut e wo uld circ umvent the L eg islature’s decision to pla ce the burden on the defe ndant to prove the e lements that

a b s o l v e h i mo f

c r i m i n a l l i a

b i l i t y. Be cause “a le g islative p u rp o s e to exclude the justification claimed for the conduc t” does “plainly appea r,” I agr ee wi th the Court that appellant wa s not entitled to an instruction on the de fe ns e of

ne c e ssi ty . I

c on c ur in t he Court ’s jud g me nt. Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh