## Facts

- Dr. Joseph Toscano, a chiropractor, was indicted in a multi-count scheme alleging staged accidents and fraudulent insurance claims.
- Toscano was tried for conspiring to obtain money by false pretenses based on preparing a false medical report used to support a claim against an insurer.
- Toscano admitted completing the false report but claimed he acted under duress.
- Evidence supporting duress (viewed in Toscano’s favor) included repeated telephone threats by the scheme organizer, William Leonardo, who threatened physical harm to Toscano and Toscano’s wife if Toscano did not cooperate.
- Leonardo referenced knowing where Toscano lived and warned Toscano not to leave his wife alone; Toscano testified he feared for their safety.
- Toscano owed gambling debts to Leonardo’s brother, which increased Toscano’s fear of retaliation.
- Toscano did not contact police, hoping the matter would end; after completing the report and receiving no compensation, he and his wife moved and obtained an unlisted number to avoid further contact.

## Issues

1. Whether duress is an affirmative defense to crimes other than murder and whether it requires a threat of “present, imminent and impending” bodily harm.
2. Whether Toscano’s proffered evidence was sufficient to require a jury instruction on duress.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed Toscano’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held duress is an affirmative defense to crimes other than murder and does not require proof of an immediate threat.
- The court adopted a Model Penal Code–type test: duress applies when unlawful force or threats would overcome a person of reasonable firmness in the defendant’s situation.
- Under the adopted standard, Toscano presented enough evidence to warrant a duress instruction; the trial court erred by withholding the defense from the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Duress is an affirmative defense to all crimes except murder.
- Duress does not require a threat of immediate bodily injury; continuing or future-directed threats may qualify.
- The governing standard is whether the defendant was coerced by unlawful force or threats that a person of reasonable firmness in the defendant’s situation would have been unable to resist.
- The test is objective but situational: the factfinder may consider relevant circumstances of the defendant’s situation (e.g., physical condition) but not idiosyncratic timidity or temperament.
- When there is some evidence supporting duress, the jury ordinarily decides whether the coercion satisfies the standard; a court should not withhold the instruction by applying a rigid imminence requirement.

## Conclusion

By replacing the common-law “imminent and impending” requirement with a reasonable-firmness standard and requiring jury consideration where supported by evidence, the court held Toscano was entitled to a duress instruction and ordered a new trial.


State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 378 A.2d 755 (N.J. 1977)