Opinion ID: 567132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Relating to a Duress Defense

Text: 5 Moya argues the district court erred by excluding evidence of his duress defense. 6 A defendant must present evidence creating a factual dispute as to each element of the duress defense. United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1387 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 869 (1986). 7 One of the elements of the duress defense is that the defendant sought alternative means of protection before fleeing, and thus breaking the law, to escape the threatened harm. United States v. Atencio, 586 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1978); see also United States v. Jennell, 749 F.2d 1302, 1305 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 837 (1985). A defendant is not entitled to pursue a duress defense if he fails to call the police, the court, or his attorney prior to fleeing. Atencio, 586 F.2d at 747. If the defendant can safely turn himself in to the authorities he will likewise have a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 695 (9th Cir.1984); Jennell, 749 F.2d at 1305. 8 Moya failed to contact the authorities before fleeing. Moya also failed to present evidence that contacting the authorities would have placed him in further danger. We conclude Moya failed to present sufficient evidence that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm, and was not entitled to present evidence supporting a duress defense.