## Facts

- Rayland Ladon Tyner was charged in Dallas County, Texas, with aggravated robbery arising from a holdup at a Sonic drive-in restaurant.
- The State’s evidence showed Tyner went into the Sonic and demanded money while armed, and an employee turned over cash in a bag.
- Police arrived at the Sonic during or immediately after the robbery and arrested Tyner at the scene.
- At trial, Tyner testified he committed the robbery because three men forced him to do it.
- Tyner said he had been selling drugs in an apartment complex located on a rival gang’s turf.
- Tyner testified the men confronted him, displayed a gun, and ordered him into their car.
- According to Tyner, the men told him they would harm his pregnant wife, whom they claimed they were holding, if he did not cooperate.
- Tyner testified the men drove him to the Sonic and told him to rob the restaurant and bring them the money because they had “lost money” due to his drug dealing in their area.
- Tyner testified that as he got out of the car, one man warned him to think about his “baby mama” and that she could go into labor at any time.
- Tyner requested that the jury be instructed on the defense of duress; the trial court refused to include the requested duress instruction.
- The jury convicted Tyner of aggravated robbery, and Tyner appealed, arguing the trial court should have submitted duress to the jury.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by refusing Tyner’s requested jury instruction on duress under Texas Penal Code § 8.05?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not err in refusing the duress instruction because the evidence did not raise duress as defined by statute.
- Because no defensive instruction was required on this record, Tyner was not entitled to reversal based on the jury-charge ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a defensive jury instruction only if there is some evidence, from any source, that would support each element of the defense if the jury believed it.
- When deciding whether a defensive issue is raised, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to submitting the instruction.
- Under Texas Penal Code § 8.05, duress applies only when the actor engaged in the charged conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another.
- “Imminent” in the duress statute requires a present and immediate threat; a generalized fear or a threat of harm at an uncertain later time does not satisfy the statute.
- Evidence that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the offense or to seek help may support a conclusion that the statutory compulsion element was not raised.
- If the evidence does not raise all statutory elements of duress, the trial court properly refuses a duress instruction.

## Conclusion

In *Tyner v. State*, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed Tyner’s aggravated-robbery conviction, holding that the record did not raise the statutory defense of duress and therefore the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on duress.


Tyner v. State, No. 05-99-00310-CR, 2001 WL 683638 (2001)