 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Polston8/19/2004
ng drawing all reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence," because the trial courts and appellate courts must avoid judging the credibility of the witnesses when making this determination. State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). When jury instructions are full, fair, and accurate statements of the law, a trial court is not required to provide special instructions. State v. Mann, 959 S.W.2d 503, 521 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Kelley, 683 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984); State v. Chestnut, 643 S.W.2d 343, 352 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982). It is not error for a trial court to deny a request for special instructions when the court's instructions on a matter are proper. State v. Vann, 976 S.W.2d 93, 114 (Tenn. 1998).
1. Duress Instruction
The defense of duress is defined as follows:
Duress is a defense to prosecution where the person or a third person is threatened with harm which is present, imminent, impending and of such a nature to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done. The threatened harm must be continuous throughout the time the act is being committed, and must be one from which the person cannot withdraw in safety. Further, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm must clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-504(a) (1997). "There must be no reasonable means to escape the compulsion to commit the offense." State v. Davenport, 973 S.W.2d 283, 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). This Court has stated:
Duress is a defense to prosecution where the person or a third person is threatened with harm which is present, imminent, impending, and of such a nature to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done. The threatened harm must be continuous throughout the time the act is being committed, and must be one from which the person cannot withdraw in safety. Further, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm must clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-504 (1989). The compulsion must be immediate and imminently present and of such nature to produce a well-founded fear of death or serious bodily harm. State v. Robinson, 622 S.W.2d 62 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980).
State v. Green, 915 S.W.2d 927, 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).
In this case, the Defendant has not shown that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a duress instruction to the jury. The trial court instructed the jury on self defense because of the testimony that the victim head-butted the Defendant. The Defendant has not suggested that the victim compelled the Defendant to commit aggravated assault through any continuous coercion toward the Defendant or his companions. The concern for the safety of the Defendant and his companions came after the assault had occurred. This issue is without merit.
2. Necessity Instruction
Regarding the defense of necessity, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-609 (1997) states that except as provided in sections 39-11-611 to 39-11-621, conduct is justified if:
(1) he person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; and
(2) he desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.
"The sentencing commission comments
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|