901 F.3d 1170
10th Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Nikolle Dixon, a cashier for the Choctaw Nation, was convicted after a jury trial of embezzling roughly $16,937.83 from her employer during Oct. 2013–Jan. 2014.
- Dixon admitted taking the funds and said she did so to provide money to her mother to prevent her stepfather (who had allegedly sexually abused Dixon for years and threatened the family) from moving back into the home.
- After indictment, Dixon was diagnosed with PTSD and Dissociative Disorder by experts who opined the diagnoses stemmed from the long-term abuse and impaired her capacity to control her behavior and to perceive alternatives.
- Prior to trial Dixon filed a Notice of Defense asserting duress under Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 1.36 and proffered expert testimony; the government moved in limine to exclude the defense and related evidence, and the district court granted the motion.
- Dixon preserved the issue by proffering Pattern Instruction 1.36 and the expert testimony but the court refused to give the instruction; the jury convicted and Dixon appealed arguing the duress defense should have been submitted to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dixon produced sufficient evidence to entitle her to a duress jury instruction under Tenth Cir. Pattern Instruction 1.36 | Dixon argued her PTSD and history of prolonged sexual abuse made it objectively reasonable for her to perceive no legal alternative to theft, so duress should be submitted to jury | Government argued Dixon failed to prove by preponderance she had no reasonable, legal alternative to committing the crime and district court correctly excluded duress evidence | Court affirmed: Dixon failed to meet the second element (no reasonable legal alternative) under Pattern Instruction 1.36, so duress instruction was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing denial of duress instruction and defendant’s burden)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (necessity/duress requires threshold showing of each element to present defense)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (defendant entitled to instruction only if reasonable jury could find in defendant’s favor)
- United States v. Beckstrom, 647 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011) (law-enforcement alternative generally constitutes a reasonable legal alternative)
- United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2006) (necessity/duress claims require reasonable, lawful alternatives be foreclosed and claimant must act responsibly)
- United States v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (discussing Model Penal Code formulation and that particular circumstances and expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome can inform reasonableness)