Opinion ID: 2977011
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant was under an unlawful and present,

Text: imminent, and impending threat of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury; (2) defendant had not recklessly or negligently placed herself in a situation in which it was probable that she would be forced to choose the criminal conduct; (3) defendant had no “reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm”; (4) a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the criminal action taken and the avoidance of the threatened harm; and (5) defendant did not maintain the illegal conduct any longer than absolutely necessary. Singleton, 902 F.2d at 472-73 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s determination that defendant had failed 15 to present a prima facie case in regard to the third element is well supported by the record. The evidence, including defendant’s testimony, reveals that there were several reasonable legal alternatives which defendant could have pursued when faced with Bates’s threats, including using the various alarm systems available to officers in the institution and reporting the threats to supervisors as required under the institution’s policies.1 In addition, even assuming that defendant was under an imminent, impending threat of death or serious bodily injury from Bates when he confronted defendant in the institution, that threat was no longer imminent or impending as soon as defendant was no longer in Bates’s presence. The district court properly refused to instruct the jury on the duress defense.2