Facts
- Levi Blake spent the night smoking marijuana and drinking with his cousins, Willie Dixon and Anthony Dixon.
- Blake testified he was intoxicated, fell asleep several times, and by about 6 a.m. was still drunk and confused.
- Blake stated he thought his cousins were walking him home when they spoke in pig latin and then broke into a house where two women were upstairs.
- According to Blake, Willie ordered him at gunpoint not to leave.
- Blake testified he heard a woman scream and told his cousins he would do anything if they did not hurt the women or point the gun at him.
- Blake said Willie came back outside and made him help carry stolen items to an alley.
- The men returned to the house; Blake testified Willie ordered him inside to act as a downstairs lookout while Willie went upstairs, and threatened to start shooting if Blake left.
- Police arrived. Blake hid while the Dixons ran.
- Willie shot at an officer; the officer returned fire and killed Willie.
- Anthony jumped from a porch roof and was quickly apprehended.
- Police searched the house but did not find Blake until that afternoon.
- Blake was charged with home invasion, armed robbery, and residential burglary.
- At trial, Blake testified and requested jury instructions on both necessity and compulsion.
- The trial judge refused the necessity instruction and instead gave a compulsion instruction, modified to include threats of harm to someone other than the defendant.
- The jury convicted Blake on the charged offenses.
Issues
- Whether Blake was entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity based on his testimony that he complied to prevent greater harm to the women in the house.
- Whether giving a modified compulsion (duress) instruction made the refusal of a necessity instruction harmless.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed Blake’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that Blake presented some evidence supporting a necessity theory and was therefore entitled to a necessity instruction.
- The court further held that the modified compulsion instruction did not adequately replace a necessity instruction because the defenses differ, including on the role of imminence of the threat.
Legal Principles
- A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any affirmative defense that has some support in the evidence, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant.
- In deciding whether to give a requested defense instruction, the trial court does not weigh credibility; it determines only whether the evidentiary threshold to submit the defense to the jury has been met.
- Compulsion (duress) and necessity are distinct defenses with different elements and focus.
- A compulsion instruction does not necessarily cover a necessity theory, including where the jury could reject compulsion due to the absence of an imminent threat to the defendant at a particular time, even though the defendant claims he acted to prevent harm to others.
Conclusion
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Blake’s testimony supplied some evidence that he acted to prevent greater harm to the women in the home, requiring a necessity instruction; the modified compulsion instruction did not adequately present that separate defense to the jury.