 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Maryland9/1/1994
p. 110, 118, 349 A.2d 421 (1975), cert. denied, 278 Md. 735 (1976). Additionally, we noted that the defense of duress is not successful if the "compulsion arose by the defendant's own fault, negligence, or misconduct." Frasher, 8 Md. App. at 449 (citing 1 Wharton's Criminal Law, supra, § 123, p. 264; 16 C.J., Criminal Law, § 59, p.91; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 44, p. 136; Ross v. State, 169 Ind. 388, 82 N.E. 781; State v. Clay, 220 Iowa 1161, 264 N.W. 77 (Iowa 1935); State v. Patterson, 117 Ore. 153, 241 P. 977 (Oregon 1925); People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418 (Michigan, 1920)). See also Darby v. State, 3 Md. App. 407, 416-22, 239 A.2d 584 (1968).
Our research has not disclosed any controlling Maryland cases on this issue. Accordingly, we examine the legal reasoning and analysis from other state and federal jurisdictions.
A. State Cases - Recent Cases
In Commonwealth v. Knight, 416 Pa. Super. 586, 611 A.2d 1199 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992), the appellant, Terrence Knight, attempted to rob
a bar at gunpoint. When the owner of the bar pulled a gun, Knight said that there were other men outside, and ran out the door. Knight was later picked up by police and identified by the bar owner as the man who tried to rob the bar. Id. at 1201. At trial, Knight relied upon the defense of duress. He asserted that he was forced to rob the bar by two men from whom he bought $60 worth of drugs earlier that day. Knight claimed that the drug dealers, armed with a knife and a baseball bat, found him at his girlfriend's house, and forced him under the threat of death to go to the bar and rob it. Id. at 1201.
The court, citing 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 309(b), which was adopted from the Model Penal Code, stated that the duress defense is unavailable if the actor "recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress," or if the actor was "negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to establish culpability to the offense charged." Id. at 1203. Knight argued that the term "recklessly" in subsection (b) could not be easily comprehended by a lay person without legal assistance. Id. The court held that the term "recklessly" should be defined for a jury and that a definition of the term is "efficacious when considering the language and purpose behind the exception to the duress defense." Id. The
court referred to the definitional section of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code, 18 Pa.Cons. Stat. Ann. § 103, which in turn referred to § 302 of the Code. Section 302 defined "recklessly" as follows:
A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
Id. at 1204. (quoting 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 302(b)(3)).
The court, therefore, concluded that § 302 provides the normal meaning of "recklessly" throughout the statute encompassing both the defense of duress as well as the elements of an offense. Id. at 1204. In so doing, the court agreed with Knight's argument that "recklessly" and "negligence" did not have the same meaning within the context of the Criminal Code. Id. at 1205. The court then went on to state that "recklessly
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|