Court Opinion

ID: 9561261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:06:01.696399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:42.322440
License: Public Domain

PARKS, P.J.,
specially concurring:
While I agree that the conviction must be affirmed I disagree with the majority’s formulation of the argument relating to the duress instruction. It is true, as Judge Bussey states, that our statute on duress “does not state against whom the threat of harm must exist”, and that “[i]n such an instance, the common law should be consulted in to construe that statute. 22 O.S. 1981, § 9; Traxler v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 231, 251 P.2d 815 (1953).” Supra at 98. However, my research into the common law basis for the duress instruction plainly indicates that the defense may be raised *99where the threat was to a close relative or friend of the defendant. See LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, 379 (1972). See also, Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law 1061 (3d Ed.1982). Prof. Perkins, in fact, states that “a threat [to a relative] may be more coercive than a threat to the actor. A man might be willing to chance that a threat to kill was only a bluff, if directed to himself, but not if it was a threat to kill his wife or child.” Id. Therefore, in my opinion, 21 O.S.1981, § 156 should be interpreted to allow the defense of duress when the threat of harm is directed against a third party. I do, however, concede that the Legislature should re-examine and clarify this issue.
Nevertheless I agree the conviction should be affirmed because, even under my interpretation of the statute, the requested instruction was not supported by sufficient evidence.