Duress Defense in Perjury Prosecutions

The Three Pillars of a Valid Defense

To successfully assert a defense of duress, the compulsion must meet three strict criteria: it must be present, imminent, and impending. If any of these elements are missing, the defense is legally insufficient.

1. Imminent Danger

An "imminent" danger is defined as a threat that cannot be guarded against by seeking the protection of the law. It is not enough to simply feel unsafe; the danger must be so immediate that calling the police or seeking legal intervention would not prevent the harm.

2. Impending Compulsion

The term "impending" is often misunderstood. It is not strictly a temporal term meaning "about to happen" in a matter of seconds or minutes. Instead, "impending" focuses on whether there is a reasonable opportunity to escape the compulsion without committing the crime, regardless of how much time has passed.

3. Present Coercion

The coercion must be a current reality affecting the defendant's decision-making at the time the crime is committed.

The Limitation: Threat of Future Harm

One of the most critical boundaries in duress law is the exclusion of future harm. A mere threat of injury that might occur at a later date is insufficient to excuse a criminal act.

In the case of Pflaum v. State, the defendant argued he committed perjury because he was threatened by a violent individual. However, the court emphasized that if the law allowed "future harm" as a defense, anyone could claim they committed a crime because someone threatened to harm them "next week" or "in six months". To prevent the abuse of this excuse, the threat must be immediate and unavoidable.

Judicial Instructions and Procedural Rules

During a criminal trial, the judge provides jury instructions to explain the law to the jurors. In cases involving duress, the court must decide whether to provide a specific instruction on this defense.

When Instructions are Mandatory

A trial court is generally required to provide a special instruction on duress if there is evidence that the defendant could have reasonably believed the danger was real and impending.

When Instructions are Not Required

A court is not required to provide a duress instruction if:

• The evidence suggests the defendant could not have reasonably believed the danger was real.
• The evidence shows that, as a matter of law, the danger could not have been considered "impending".

In Pflaum v. State, the court affirmed that the defendant was not entitled to a special instruction because his claims were based on threats that did not meet the legal threshold of imminence.

The Importance of Objections

Procedural rules are strict regarding how these defenses are raised. If a defendant believes a jury instruction is improper (for example, if they believe the instruction incorrectly limits the scope of the duress defense), they must make a contemporaneous objection during the trial. If the defendant fails to object at the time, they may waive their right to challenge that instruction on appeal.