Michigan Supreme Court, 1975

People v. Harmon

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided August 20, 1975 · Kavanagh, Williams, Levin, Coleman, Fitzgerald, Lindemer, Swainson

232 N.W.2d 187; 394 Mich. 625; 1975 Mich. LEXIS 263 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections (6th Cir. 1995)
People v. Rhinehart (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)
State v. Horn (Haw. 1977)
State v. Turner (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)
Commonwealth v. Stanley (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979)
United States v. Clifford Bailey, United States of America v. Ronald Clifton Cooley, United States of America v. Ralph Walker (D.C. Cir. 1978)
State v. Reese (Iowa 1978)
State v. Pacheco (Haw. 2001)
State v. Watts (N.C. Ct. App. 1982)
People v. Mendoza (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)
People v. Martin (Mich. Ct. App. 1980)
State v. Baker (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)
State v. Whisman (Or. Ct. App. 1978)
People v. Maes (Colo. App. 1978)
State v. Haddix (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
Esquibel v. State (N.M. 1978)
State v. Bolden (Kan. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Procter (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)
People of Michigan v. Bruce Alan Weaver (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
Timothy Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, Dale E. Foltz Gwen Bogan Don Wentworth A.E. Tessmer John Doe, No. 1 (6th Cir. 1993)
El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Morales Roque (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1983)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*626 L. B. Lindemer, J.

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 NW2d 184 (1975).

In this case the defendant testified to a similar confrontation to the one noted in Luther. 1 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.

"[W]hat constitutes present, immediate and impending compulsion depends on the circumstances of each case.” 2

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.

T. G. Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, M. S. Coleman, and J. W. Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with Lindemer, J. Swainson, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals sets forth the facts in sufficient detail. People v Harmon, 53 Mich App 482, 484—485; 220 NW2d 212, 213-214 (1974).

People v Richter, 54 Mich App 598; 221 NW2d 429 (1974). (In that case the time lapse was three weeks.)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.