From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harmon

Supreme Court of Michigan
Aug 20, 1975
394 Mich. 625 (Mich. 1975)


Docket No. 56016.

Argued June 4, 1975 (Calendar No. 9).

Decided August 20, 1975.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, James Banks, Prosecuting Attorney, and Prosecuting Attorneys Appellate Service (by Edward R. Wilson, Director, and Aloysius J. Lynch), for the people.

State Appellate Defender Office (by Sharon Sloan and John A. Lydick), for defendant on appeal.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of prison escape. MCLA 750.193; MSA 28.390. The Court of Appeals reversed defendant's conviction, and we affirm on the same basis as People v Luther, ante, 394 Mich. 619; 232 N.W.2d 184 (1975).

In this case the defendant testified to a similar confrontation to the one noted in Luther. We discuss only one factual variation; defendant did not leave the prison until approximately 24 hours after the confrontation. This does not suffice to remove the defense of duress from the consideration of the jury.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals sets forth the facts in sufficient detail. People v Harmon, 53 Mich. App. 482, 484-485; 220 N.W.2d 212, 213-214 (1974).

"[W]hat constitutes present, immediate and impending compulsion depends on the circumstances of each case."

People v Richter, 54 Mich. App. 598; 221 N.W.2d 429 (1974). (In that case the time lapse was three weeks.)

The trial court's refusal to give an instruction on duress was reversibly erroneous.

The Court of Appeals is affirmed. Defendant's cross-appeal is moot.


SWAINSON, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Summaries of

People v. Harmon

Supreme Court of Michigan
Aug 20, 1975
394 Mich. 625 (Mich. 1975)
Case details for

People v. Harmon

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v HARMON

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Aug 20, 1975


394 Mich. 625 (Mich. 1975)
232 N.W.2d 187

Citing Cases

People v. Rhinehart

Although we may have doubts that there was a tenable defense of duress, it is the jury that must determine if…

Taylor v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections

In 1974, Foltz testified that small, youthful prisoners are especially vulnerable to sexual pressure. See…