410 P.3d 378
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant accompanied codefendant (mother) after an uncle threatened that if defendant did not give the mother a ride, "something" would happen to defendant's daughter; the daughter lived with defendant in Salem.
- The mother instructed defendant to stop, follow her to a rural residence, and wait outside while she entered; after about an hour she ran out, shoved jewelry at defendant, and said, "Let's go."
- Deputy Church found defendant near the scene wearing a single athletic shoe matching an impression near a forced garage; defendant was detained and immediately told Church he had been "coerced" and asked Church to check on his daughter.
- At trial defendant testified he feared for his daughter because of the uncle's threats, had no phone to check on her, and felt he had no reasonable alternative.
- The trial court refused defendant's requested jury instructions on the statutory choice-of-evils (ORS 161.200) and duress (ORS 161.270) defenses, finding defendant’s threat testimony not credible.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed whether any evidence supported giving the defenses and held the trial court erred by refusing the instructions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Campbell's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence entitled defendant to a jury instruction on the choice-of-evils defense | Evidence was too vague; threat not shown imminent or necessitating criminal conduct | Evidence showed an immediate threat to his daughter and no reasonable alternative, so instruction required | Reversed — any evidence supporting elements requires instruction; enough evidence existed to submit choice-of-evils to jury |
| Whether the evidence entitled defendant to a jury instruction on the statutory duress defense | Threat was not proven "present, imminent, and impending" at time of offense | Defendant reasonably believed his daughter faced imminent harm and was coerced, supporting duress instruction | Reversed — sufficient evidence of coercion and imminence to permit juror determination |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boldt, 116 Or. App. 480 (explaining elements of choice-of-evils and imminence for duress)
- State v. Freih, 270 Or. App. 555 (necessity requires no reasonable alternative)
- State v. Matthews, 30 Or. App. 1133 (any evidence supporting defense requires submission to jury)
- State v. Oneill, 256 Or. App. 537 (standard of review for refused jury instructions)
- State v. Fitzgerald, 14 Or. App. 361 (danger for duress must be present, imminent, and impending)