California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Anderson, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 587, 28 Cal.4th 767, 50 P.3d 368 (Cal. 2002):
The concurring and dissenting opinion also argues that duress especially should be a defense to implied malice second degree murder. It evokes the image of an innocent person who is forced at gunpoint by fleeing armed robbers to drive recklessly, and who is then charged with murder when a fatal accident ensues. In reality, the situation is not so grim. Although duress is not an affirmative defense to murder, the circumstances of duress would certainly be relevant to whether the evidence establishes the elements of implied malice murder. The reasons a person acted in a certain way, including threats of death, are highly relevant to whether the person acted with a conscious or wanton disregard for human life. (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300, 179 Cal.Rptr. 43, 637 P.2d 279.) This is not due to a special doctrine of duress but to the requirements of implied malice murder.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.