Prosecutor tells appeals court duress defense is narrow and rarely applies

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals also heard competing arguments about whether the defendant's claim of duress warranted relief. Dane Hixon, representing the state, told the panel that Ohio law limits duress to circumstances where a defendant is compelled by a threat of immediate, imminent death or serious bodily injury that persists for the entire criminal act.

"The duress defense is a very limited defense for cases in which the defendant is compelled to commit a crime under a threat of immediate imminent death or bodily injury," Hixon said, emphasizing the requirement that the threat be present throughout the offending conduct.

Hixon argued the record in this case does not show the kind of continuous, immediate threat the law requires and asserted that, under precedent such as State v. Strickland, fear of future harm or episodic threats that are not continuously present do not sustain a duress defense.

Defense counsel Adam Parker disputed that characterization, saying the chronology and evidence recorded at trial do not support a duress finding and that, in any event, the appellant had at least some responsibility for creating the circumstances (for example, by calling the alleged co‑actor). Judges pressed both sides on whether evidence of prior threats, the timing of the alleged coercion and trial preservation rules permit the court to overturn the trial court's rulings.

The panel did not announce a ruling on the duress assignment; the matter was submitted with the other issues for written disposition.