123 A.3d 207
Me.2015Background
- Christal N. Gagnier was convicted by a jury of: tampering with a victim (witness tampering), aggravated furnishing of a scheduled drug (giving her prescription azithromycin to a child), and endangering the welfare of a child. Sentences were imposed and Gagnier appealed.
- Gagnier's defense at trial and on appeal was that she acted under duress because of a long history of physical and sexual abuse by her husband Michael, and fear that he would harm her or the children if she resisted him.
- Key factual assertions: Michael sexually assaulted a child in the household (B.G.); repeatedly physically and sexually abused Gagnier; threatened surveillance and violence; once told Gagnier to tell B.G. not to incriminate him while he was jailed; Michael allegedly directed or prevented Gagnier from seeking medical care for B.G., and Gagnier either gave her medication to B.G. on her own or at Michael’s direction.
- Trial court denied Gagnier’s requested jury instruction on the statutory defense of duress (17-A M.R.S. § 103-A), concluding the evidence did not show an imminent threat or lack of opportunity to escape or seek help. Jury convicted on all counts; Gagnier appealed solely challenging the refusal to instruct on duress.
- On appeal the court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Gagnier to determine whether it generated the duress defense, focusing on whether threats were specific, imminent, and would have prevented a reasonable person in her situation from resisting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence generated statutory duress instruction | Gagnier: her history of abuse and Michael’s threats compelled her to follow his directions, so duress should be submitted to the jury | State: threats were not imminent, and Gagnier had opportunities to seek help or act independently | Court: No. Evidence did not show specific, imminent threat or lack of reasonable opportunity to resist; duress instruction properly denied |
| Duress as defense to tampering (encouraging B.G. to lie) | Gagnier: told B.G. to be lenient because Michael ordered it and she feared him | State: Michael was jailed and lacked immediate access; threat was a veiled future threat | Held: No duress—threat while jailed was not imminent, legally insufficient under precedent |
| Duress as defense to aggravated furnishing (giving prescription to B.G.) | Gagnier: Michael prevented medical care and compelled her to give medication | State: no evidence of an imminent threat compelling the act; Gagnier had alternatives (take to hospital, school nurse, wait until he worked) | Held: No duress—no specific imminent threat and reasonable alternatives existed |
| Duress as defense to child endangerment (failure to protect B.G.) | Gagnier: long-term abuse made her unable to protect B.G. | State: duty to protect; evidence could show failures across the charged period and opportunities to act when Michael was absent | Held: No duress—record did not show she was under imminent threat at all times she owed duty; generalized fear insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doyon, 745 A.2d 365 (Me. 1999) (defendant entitled to instruction when evidence makes defense a reasonable hypothesis)
- State v. Delano, 111 A.3d 648 (Me. 2015) (view evidence in light most favorable to defendant when assessing generated defenses)
- State v. Tomah, 736 A.2d 1047 (Me. 1999) (duress requires real, specific, and imminent threat; veiled future threats insufficient)
- State v. Glidden, 487 A.2d 642 (Me. 1985) (duress is not an affirmative defense; if generated, State must negate beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Larrivee, 479 A.2d 347 (Me. 1984) (imminence requires threat ‘‘ready to take place’’; opportunity to escape negates duress)
- State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me. 1981) (domestic abuse context may warrant expert evidence to explain defendant’s perceptions)
- State v. Neild, 903 A.2d 339 (Me. 2006) (instruction generation depends on whether evidence presented creates the defense)
- State v. Millett, 273 A.2d 504 (Me. 1971) (evidence relevant to production burden may come from any source)