Opinion

People v. Harmon

  • 394 Mich. 625
  • 232 N.W.2d 187
  • 1975 Mich. LEXIS 263
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 20, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Lindemer
On the bench
Kavanagh, Williams, Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, Lindemer, Swainson
Cited by
21 cases
Authority
More cited than 92.8%

in case where defendant Foltz himself testified in that case to the effect that "there definitely was a homosexual problem at the institution and that the person generally pressed for sex was one who had a youthful appearance," Michigan appeals court held that defendants charged with escape from custody may raise the defense of duress due to the threat of homosexual attack

How later courts described this case

  • in case where defendant Foltz himself testified in that case to the effect that "there definitely was a homosexual problem at the institution and that the person generally pressed for sex was one who had a youthful appearance," Michigan appeals court held that defendants charged with escape from custody may raise the defense of duress due to the threat of homosexual attack

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*626

L. B. Lindemer, J.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of prison escape. MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390. The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction, and we affirm on the same basis as

People v Luther, ante,

394 Mich 619 ; 232 NW2d 184 (1975).

In this case the defendant testified to a similar confrontation to the one noted in Luther.

1

We discuss only one factual variation; defendant did not leave the prison until approximately 24 hours after the confrontation. This does not suffice to remove the defense of duress from the consideration of the jury.

"[W]hat constitutes present, immediate and impending compulsion depends on the circumstances of each case.”

2

The trial court’s refusal to give an instruction on duress was reversibly erroneous.

The Court of Appeals is affirmed. Defendant’s cross-appeal is moot.

T. G. Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, M. S. Coleman, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with Lindemer, J.

Swainson, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

1

The opinion of the Court of Appeals sets forth the facts in sufficient detail.

People v Harmon,

53 Mich App 482 , 484—485; 220 NW2d 212, 213-214 (1974).

2

People v Richter,

54 Mich App 598 ; 221 NW2d 429 (1974). (In that case the time lapse was three weeks.)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.

People v. Harmon · 394 Mich. 625 | Frix