Whitworth, Stephen Craig, PD-1467-14

Appellant Stephen Craig Whitworth was tried in Midland County for murder (Count 1 — death of Christopher Easley) and aggravated assault (Count 2 — Anne Bostic). The jury convicted on both counts and assessed 20 years’ imprisonment on each. Appellant appealed.
Before submission, Whitworth requested jury instructions on duress and necessity for both counts; the trial court denied those instructions.
On direct appeal the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the murder conviction (Count 1) and reversed and remanded the aggravated assault conviction (Count 2) for a new trial. Whitworth sought discretionary review on whether the court erred by denying duress/necessity instructions.
Duress (Tex. Penal Code § 8.05) requires compulsion by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, a reasonable-objective basis for fear, immediacy of the threat, and that the defendant admit having engaged in the proscribed conduct; the statute also bars the defense if the actor knowingly placed himself in the situation.
The State argued the record lacked evidence of an imminent threat by co-defendant Paul Curtis Lee that would have compelled Whitworth to participate; evidence of generalized fear and alleged gang affiliation did not establish the immediacy or objective compulsion required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether duress instruction was required	Whitworth: testimony (Bostic, Bomar) supplies some evidence he acted as a party under compulsion from Lee, so duress instruction should have been given	State: No evidence Lee threatened Whitworth or that threat was imminent; only generalized fear and speculation, so duress not raised	Trial court did not err — duress not raised by record; appeals court affirmed on this point
Whether necessity instruction was required	Whitworth: argued generally that evidence supporting party liability could also support necessity instruction	State: Petition fails to present any developed argument or authority showing necessity applies; issue inadequately presented	Court declined review on inadequately presented necessity claim; State asked PDR be denied
Sufficiency under law of parties for murder conviction	Whitworth sought rehearing; argued sufficiency as party was not established	State: Court of Appeals found evidence sufficient to convict as a party	Court of Appeals affirmed sufficiency for Count 1 on rehearing
Whether placing oneself in situation bars duress defense	Whitworth implied compulsion; State emphasized Penal Code bar when actor knowingly placed himself in danger	State: Evidence shows no admissible immediate compulsion and actor’s prior choices negate defense	Court relied on statutory standards and case law to deny duress instruction

Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (standard for reviewing refusal to submit defensive issue)
Pennington v. State, 54 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (evidence in justification defense reviewed in light most favorable to defendant)
Anguish v. State, 991 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (duress requires compulsion and immediacy; two-component test for immediacy)
Ramirez v. State, 336 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011) (accused must admit engaging in proscribed conduct to avail duress defense)
Murkledove v. State, 437 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (fear of possible future harm insufficient absent evidence of imminent threat)
Cameron v. State, 925 S.W.2d 246 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995) (generalized fear of co-defendant’s temper does not raise duress)
Bernal v. State, 647 S.W.2d 699 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982) (mere fear that co-defendant might become violent insufficient for duress)