(a) In a prosecution for any offense it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the conduct otherwise constituting the offense: (1) because he was coerced into doing so by the threatened use of unlawful force against his person or the person of another in circumstances where a person or reasonable firmness in his situation would not have done otherwise; or (2) in order to avoid death or great bodily harm to himself or another in circumstances where a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would not have done otherwise. (b) The defenses defined in this Section are not available if the offense is murder nor to a person who placed himself intentionally, knowingly or recklessly in a situation in which it was probably that he would be subjected to duress or compulsion. SOURCE: Guam PC, § 26(8)(9); M.P.C. § 2.09; *Cal. § 520 (T.D. 1, 1967); Cal. § 555 (1971); Mass. ch. 263, § 41; N.J. 2C:2-9. CROSS-REFERENCES: This Section presents the defenses of duress and compulsion, superseding Paragraphs (8) and (9) of PC § 26; § 7.76, et seq. of this Code; and § 4.30 (A) - (C) of this Code. COMMENT: The purpose of this Section is to formulate a principle of excuse even in those cases where the harm or evil created by the defendant by violating the criminal law was equal to or greater than the harm or evil that would have resulted if he had not acted. This is distinguished from the situation where the defendant’s action is a choice of what could be characterized as a lessor of two evils. The latter situation is dealt with Article 4, commencing with § 7.76, of this Code. This Section presents two types of defenses, the first being what is commonly called duress, existing in circumstances where a person reasonably believes that the threat may be carried out. The second situation is what is known as necessity. This is a defense to a criminal act undertaken to avoid what appears to be a present or imminent reality, rather than merely a threat. It is important to note that neither defense is available to the crime of murder nor to a person who puts himself in a situation where duress or compulsion probably would occur. In this latter case, a person must do more than blunder into the situation by negligence. He must enter the situation with some form of knowledge or records abandon similar to the standard required by § 4.30 (A)(B) or (C) of this Code. The scope resistance is stated in the terms of the Model Penal Code’s standard of “a person of reasonable firmness.” Compare to ordinary firmness as defined in State v. Crow, 23 N.C. 297 (1871); Texas Penal Code, Article 38 (1948). This is substantially the same as the “reasonable cause” standard in Guam Penal Code § 26, but it is expressed in terms which make it more clearly apparent that the person subjected to threats, although he is not called upon to be a hero, must not yield too readily to a choice of nonresistance.
COL 2026-04-23