## Facts

- Gaylord William Anguish was charged with robbery and theft of an automobile arising from events on December 3, 1990.
- Anguish stole a van from a child care center, drove to a drive-through bank window, and threatened to blow up the bank.
- A teller placed approximately $15,000 into the drawer, which Anguish took before driving away.
- A bank security guard followed Anguish to an apartment complex parking lot and arrested him.
- At trial, Anguish asserted the affirmative defense of duress, claiming two men threatened harm to him and his family unless he robbed a bank.
- The threats were allegedly made four days before the offenses.
- The trial court excluded portions of Anguish’s proffered duress evidence; a jury convicted him and assessed 5 years’ imprisonment for robbery and 2 years’ imprisonment plus a $1,000 fine for automobile theft.
- On appeal, Anguish challenged the exclusion of duress-related evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether Anguish’s proffered duress evidence was relevant to the automobile-theft charge where the alleged threats demanded a bank robbery but did not direct theft of a van.
2. Whether threats made four days before the robbery satisfied Texas Penal Code § 8.05(a)’s requirement of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury.
3. Whether alleged inability or unwillingness of law enforcement to protect Anguish could render an otherwise non-imminent threat “imminent” for duress purposes.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions for robbery and theft of an automobile.
- As to automobile theft, the court held the proffer showed no link between the alleged threats and stealing the van; excluding duress evidence for that charge was proper.
- As to robbery, the court held threats made four days earlier were not “imminent” as required by § 8.05(a); excluding the duress evidence was not error.
- The court rejected the argument that perceived lack of police protection could convert a non-imminent threat into an imminent one.

## Legal Principles

- Duress is an affirmative defense only if the accused was compelled by a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the accused or another. (Tex. Penal Code § 8.05(a))
- “Imminent” requires a present, immediate threat demonstrating intent and readiness to carry out the harm; threats of future harm or threats separated by time ordinarily do not qualify.
- The threatened harm must be conditioned on commission of the specific charged offense; a general demand to commit a different offense does not establish duress for the charged conduct.
- A defendant’s belief that law enforcement cannot or will not provide protection does not, by itself, make a threat “imminent” under § 8.05(a).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Anguish’s robbery and automobile-theft convictions because the alleged threats were not imminent at the time of the robbery and were not conditioned on stealing the van, so the excluded duress evidence did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the defense.


Anguish v. State, 991 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999)