Opinion ID: 1387354
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duress and the Victim As the Initial Aggressor

Text: A trial judge must consider in mitigation whether the defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, although not such as to constitute a defense to prosecution. A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(2) (1989). Duress is defined as any illegal imprisonment, or legal imprisonment used for an illegal purpose, or threats of bodily or other harm, or other means amounting to or tending to coerce the will of another, and actually inducing him to do an act contrary to his free will. State v. Castaneda, 150 Ariz. 382, 394, 724 P.2d 1, 13 (1986) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 452 (5th ed. 1979)). To find duress under this definition, one person must coerce or induce another person to do something against his will. Id. It is undisputed that Rita went to defendant's apartment, acted belligerently, and confronted defendant with a gun. It is equally clear from the record, however, that defendant disarmed Rita shortly after she displayed the gun and that Rita thereafter presented no appreciable threat to defendant. After she was disarmed, any chance of unusual and substantial duress ended. Thus, defendant has not proven this statutory mitigating circumstance. Nor has he proved that Rita's status as the initial aggressor is a relevant mitigating factor.