State of Maine v. Christopher Murray, 259 A.3d 1276

In December 2017 Christopher Murray traveled with his girlfriend Alexis and her father Tony to the LaPierres’ house in Millinocket; Tony and Murray produced guns, bound the homeowners, and forced retrieval of money/marijuana.
Diem LaPierre and Wayne LaPierre were shot in the basement; Diem survived with traumatic brain injury and later identified Murray as the shooter; Wayne later died.
Alexis initially told police Tony had pressured Murray to go in and had told her Murray “had to do it,” but at trial Alexis recanted that she had lied to protect Murray.
Murray sought a jury instruction on the statutory defense of duress (arguing Tony compelled him as an accomplice) and proffered a psychological expert to testify that Diem was likely “confabulating” her memory due to brain injury.
The court declined to give a duress instruction and excluded the expert’s opinion that it was “more likely than not” Diem was confabulating (allowing other expert testimony about memory gaps).
A jury convicted Murray of intentional/knowing murder, elevated aggravated assault, and robbery; the court imposed life imprisonment and Murray appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Murray)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a jury instruction on duress as to accomplice liability murder	Duress was not generated because there was no evidence Tony threatened Murray with imminent death/serious harm or that Murray was compelled	Alexis’s pretrial statement that Tony told Murray he "had to go in" and threatened consequences generated a duress defense as to Murray’s accomplice liability	No error: evidence did not show a threat of imminent death/serious bodily harm to Murray or compulsion a reasonable person in his position could not resist; duress instruction not generated
Whether the court abused its discretion by excluding expert opinion that victim was "more likely than not" confabulating	The excluded opinion invaded witness credibility and addressed the ultimate issue for the jury; the expert lacked specialized basis (no exam/testing) for that conclusion	Expert could explain confabulation and, based on Diem’s TBI and inconsistencies, opine it was more likely than not she was confabulating	No abuse of discretion: exclusion proper because the opinion concerned witness credibility and an ultimate factual issue, and the expert lacked the specialized factual basis; any error was harmless

State v. Gagnier, 123 A.3d 207 (discusses imminence and objective standard for duress defense)
State v. Larrivee, 479 A.2d 347 (threat not imminent where opportunity to escape or report exists)
State v. Hatt, 810 A.2d 415 (expert testimony to impeach credibility requires showing a medical condition that affects truth-telling)
State v. Flick, 425 A.2d 167 (court may exclude expert opinion under relevance/helpfulness standards)
State v. Willoughby, 507 A.2d 1060 (harmless-error analysis for exclusion of testimony)
State v. Carrillo, 248 A.3d 193 (no duress instruction where no evidence of specific imminent harm)