Opinion ID: 2102944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant contends that his defense of duress was established as a matter of law. The only evidence of Duress came from the testimony of Defendant, who was the only witness for the defense. At trial, Defendant related a lengthy story about continuing harassment, beatings, and a robbery he suffered at the hands of a gang in Gary known as the Brotherhood. These assaults, designed to force him to join the gang, had occurred over a period of approximately three weeks prior to the night of the offenses charged herein. Defendant claims that the leader of the gang had ordered him, with personal threats, to break into a house accompanied by another gang member, who was armed with a pistol. Once inside, Defendant, again pursuant to orders, hit an eighty-five (85) year old woman over the head more than once with a hammer that he had obtained from the basement of the house. The jury was not obligated to believe Defendant's testimony, nor, based upon the evidence, to find duress as defined in Ind. Code § 35-41-3-8 (Burns 1979). Defendant testified on direct examination that he had thought that he had a chance to abandon the crime before he assaulted the victim. From his subsequent actions, the jury could find that Defendant had chosen not to escape. See Rodgers v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 57, 60. Additionally Defendant admitted his culpability on cross-examination: Q. So what you're telling us today, Mr. Kee, is the reason you're here is somebody else's fault? A. Excuse me? Q. The reason you're here today is all somebody else's fault? A. No, it's not all somebody else's fault. Q. Trying? A. It's not. Q. Trying to tell us it's not your own fault? A. It's partially my fault. (R. at 384-85) We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.