Opinion ID: 2590700
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Instruct on the Defense of Duress

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on the defense of duress. (See ง 26; CALJIC No. 4.40.) He contends there was substantial evidence that he acted out of fear that Anderson, whom defendant maintained committed the criminal acts, would kill him. Specifically, defendant testified that he heard two gunshots, that he saw Anderson standing over Swader's body holding a gun, that Anderson pointed the gun at defendant and told him to drive, and that defendant figure[d] he was going to kill me, too. Defendant asserts that he simply interrupted, then aided, a robbery that was in progress. The defense of duress is available to defendants who commit crimes, except murder, under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused. (ง 26; see People v. Anderson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 767, 780, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 50 P.3d 368.) Although duress is not a defense to any form of murder, ( People v. Anderson, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 780, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 50 P.3d 368) duress can, in effect, provide a defense to murder on a felony-murder theory by negating the underlying felony. [Citations.] If one is not guilty of the underlying felony due to duress, one cannot be guilty of felony murder based on that felony. ( Id. at p. 784, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 50 P.3d 368.) A trial court is required to instruct sua sponte on a duress defense if there is substantial evidence of the defense and if it is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case. (See People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094.) Defendant claims there was substantial evidence of duress as a defense to the robbery charge (ง 211), the underlying offense of felony murder, and the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation (ง 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)). The trial court here instructed the jury as to both deliberate and premeditated first degree murder (CALJIC No. 8.20), and first degree felony murder (CALJIC No. 8.21). Because it is unclear whether the jury relied on the premeditation theory or the felony-murder theory, defendant argues we must reverse the murder conviction, in addition to the penalty judgment and the robbery conviction. We conclude the trial court did not err in failing to give the duress instruction because defendant failed to present substantial evidence of the defense. Substantial evidence is `evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, not whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.' ( People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 369, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 28 P.3d 34, quoting People v. Williams (1992) 4 Cal.4th 354, 361, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961.) Although defendant testified Anderson pointed a gun at him and told him to drive, defendant conceded that he did not actually see Anderson with a gun. Moreover, in his pretrial statement, defendant admitted to detectives that he and Anderson planned Swader's robbery and murder, that he and Anderson shared the idea to commit these crimes 50-50, and that he had the motive to rob Swader in order to pay off a $13,000 debt. In any event, any error based on the failure to instruct on duress was harmless. The jury clearly rejected defendant's theory that he had no involvement in the murder and that he aided the robbery only after Anderson had already shot and killed Swader. As the trial court instructed the jury, the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation required the jury to find that defendant acted with specific intent to kill and that the murder was committed while [defendant] was engaged in the commission of a robbery. By finding this special circumstance allegation to be true, the jury necessarily rejected any factual basis underlying defendant's duress defense. (See People v. Pulido (1997) 15 Cal.4th 713, 726-727, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 936 P.2d 1235 [true finding on robbery-murder special circumstance shows jury rejected the defendant's theory that he was involved in the robbery only after the killing].) Moreover, the jury found that defendant personally used a handgun in the commission of the murder and robbery. (ง 12022.5, subd. (a).) This finding also shows the jury rejected defendant's testimony that his involvement in the crimes was minor and that Anderson was the armed robber and actual killer.