357 P.3d 101
Wyo.2015Background
- On Jan. 1, 2013, Terence James and Kevin Lewis, both masked, entered a Fairfield Inn in Laramie; Lewis brandished a gun and took money while James was present. James admitted his presence and involvement at trial but maintained he acted under duress.
- James testified Lewis had lived with his family, exhibited violent conduct, threatened James and his mother (once holding a gun to James’s head about a week before the Laramie robbery), and claimed friends who were "killers" would protect him.
- James claimed he accompanied Lewis in Laramie because he feared Lewis would harm him or his family if he refused; he had previously been to police with complaints and believed reporting would not protect him.
- The district court refused to instruct the jury on duress after James’s testimony and barred defense counsel from arguing duress in closing.
- The prosecutor emphasized the absence of a duress instruction; the jury asked whether the law allows consideration of duress and the court answered "No." The jury convicted James of accessory before the fact to aggravated robbery.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding the court erred by refusing the duress instruction and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refusal to give a duress instruction violated due process | James argued his testimony provided competent evidence of duress (threats, gun to head, fear for family, belief in killers) and thus entitled him to the instruction | State argued James failed to present competent evidence of the required elements (no imminent threat on the night, reasonable alternatives existed) | Court held James was entitled to the duress instruction; refusal denied his right to a fair trial and warranted reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 999 P.2d 649 (Wyo. 2000) (duress requires present, imminent threat; refusal to instruct proper when evidence insufficient)
- Amin v. State, 811 P.2d 255 (Wyo. 1991) (duress not available absent specific imminent threat and lack of legal alternatives)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (sets elements of duress defense and places burden to prove duress by preponderance)
- Nelson v. State, 245 P.3d 282 (Wyo. 2010) (due process requires jury instruction presenting defendant's theory when supported by competent evidence)