## Facts

- Matt J. Heath was charged with first degree burglary (Cal. Penal Code § 459) after being apprehended at the scene of a residential break-in.
- Homeowners left their Farmersville residence around 8:00 a.m.; a deputy responded to a silent alarm about 9:10 a.m.
- The deputy observed Heath exiting through a broken window and arrested him.
- Heath possessed coins, jewelry, and a jewelry bag taken from the home and admitted committing the burglary.
- The prosecution presented evidence suggesting planning: Heath removed a canvas covering a vehicle and took a sleeping bag from a storage shed to wait until the residents left.
- An investigating officer testified Heath likely spent the night near the home, with shoe tracks indicating repeated trips between shed and house.
- At trial, Heath admitted the burglary but claimed duress, testifying a drug dealer to whom he owed money threatened him with a gun and death if he did not commit the burglary.
- The prosecution presented testimony that Heath initially said he acted alone (though he had been dropped off) and did not report threats when first questioned.
- A jury convicted Heath after brief deliberations; the trial court denied probation, imposed a four-year midterm prison sentence, a restitution fine, and ordered $1,000 reimbursement for appointed counsel based on a finding of present ability to pay.

## Issues

1. Whether it was reversible instructional error to give a standard duress instruction plus an additional instruction derived from a necessity theory, potentially confusing the jury by blending duress and necessity.
2. Whether the duress instruction and evidence properly satisfied duress requirements, including an immediate threat and lack of reasonable opportunity to avoid the threatened harm.
3. Whether the trial court’s order requiring Heath to pay $1,000 in appointed-counsel fees was supported by substantial evidence of his present ability to pay.

## Decision

- The burglary conviction was affirmed.
- The court held the trial court erred by using an additional instruction that conflated duress with necessity concepts, but the error was not prejudicial given the full charge and the record.
- The court concluded the duress evidence was weak and did not show a reasonable probability of a different verdict absent the instructional error.
- The order requiring payment of $1,000 in appointed-counsel fees was reversed/stricken and remanded for further proceedings because the record did not support a finding of present ability to pay.
- Judgment affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Duress excuses criminal conduct (subject to statutory limits) only when the defendant acts under an immediate threat of death or great bodily injury that would cause a reasonable person to fear the threat will be carried out.
- Duress is not established where the threat is not immediate or where the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to escape, seek help, or otherwise avoid committing the offense.
- Necessity and duress are distinct defenses with different elements; jury instructions should not merge necessity requirements (such as proportionality or greater-harm balancing) into duress.
- An order requiring reimbursement of appointed-counsel fees requires an evidentiary basis for the defendant’s present ability to pay; a conclusory finding, especially in light of a prison sentence, is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Heath’s first degree burglary conviction, finding that an erroneous instruction blending duress and necessity did not prejudice the verdict, but it reversed the appointed-counsel fee order because the record lacked substantial evidence that Heath had a present ability to pay.


People v. Heath, 207 Cal. App. 3d 892, 255 Cal. Rptr. 120 (Ct. App. 1989)