This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, armed robbery, and criminal sexual penetration (CSP), stemming from an incident where he accompanied another individual, Wiggington, to a victim's home. The Defendant claimed he acted under duress, fearing Wiggington, who had a history of intimidation and violence, would harm the victim or himself if he did not comply. Wiggington committed various crimes, including sexual assaults, while the Defendant assisted minimally under coercion (paras 1, 3-12).
Procedural History
- Trial court: Convicted the Defendant of multiple charges, including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, armed robbery, and CSP. The trial court excluded expert testimony regarding Wiggington's character and denied a jury instruction on duress.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony about Wiggington's character, which was essential to the duress defense, and by refusing a jury instruction on duress. The Defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the CSP charges (paras 1, 14-15).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the expert testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible under evidentiary rules, as it pertained to events predating the incident. The Plaintiff also argued that the jury instructions and evidence supporting the CSP charges were proper (paras 14, 17).
Legal Issues
- Was the exclusion of expert testimony regarding the coercer's character an error that denied the Defendant his duress defense?
- Did the trial court err in refusing the Defendant's requested jury instruction on duress?
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the jury instructions on the CSP charges?
Disposition
- The exclusion of expert testimony was found to be reversible error, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 33).
- The trial court's refusal to give the requested jury instruction on duress and its instructions on the CSP charges were upheld (para 2).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J.:
The trial court erred in excluding the expert testimony about Wiggington's character, as it was relevant to the Defendant's duress defense. The character of the coercer was an essential element of the defense, and the testimony would have corroborated the Defendant's claims of fear and the immediacy of the threat. The exclusion of this evidence deprived the Defendant of a fair opportunity to present his defense (paras 16-27, 33).
The court found that the duress defense involves both subjective and objective components: the Defendant's actual fear and whether a reasonable person would have acted similarly. The expert testimony was relevant to both aspects, particularly in explaining the Defendant's perception of the threat and Wiggington's intimidating behavior (paras 24-26).
The trial court's refusal to give the Defendant's requested jury instruction on duress was upheld, as the standard jury instruction adequately addressed the defense. Additionally, the evidence supporting the CSP charges was deemed sufficient to justify the jury instructions (para 2).