Opinion ID: 2532452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was there evidentiary support for a duress instruction?

Text: ¶ 17. A defendant is entitled to have an instruction given to the jury presenting his theory of the case even when the evidence that supports it is weak, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility. [17] After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Banyard presented sufficient evidence to support his duress theory. Traven Kyser testified that, in his opinion, Banyard could not change his mind once Ragsdale set the events in motion. Banyard testified consistently that he did not want to rob the pizza man, but that Ragsdale was looking serious and mean, and that he was scared of him. Banyard testified that Ragsdale had jumped on him the first time they had met. Although Ragsdale had told Banyard that the gun was unloaded, Banyard testified that he was still scared, because he thought Ragsdale would put the bullets in the gun and shoot [him] if he didn't go. As they walked toward the apartment gate, Ragsdale walked real close to Banyard the entire time, saying go [a]head, come on. When asked why he did not run as they were getting closer to the car, Banyard again responded that he thought Ragsdale would catch me, put the bullet in and shoot me. ¶ 18. The merits of Banyard's duress claim are for a properly instructed jury to weigh. The jurors are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, not the appellate courts. We need only decide whether Banyard presented sufficient evidence to meet the minimum threshold necessary to require an instruction on his theory. We find that he did. Thus, we find that it was error to deny Banyard's duress instruction.