Leonardo and a bunch of other
people were involved in a scheme to defraud insurance companies. They
would stage accidents in public places and then settle with the insurers
for their fake injuries.
As part of their scheme they
brought in a chiropractor named Toscano to make put false medical
reports.
Everybody got arrested.
Leonardo and others pleaded guilty, but Toscano claimed that he had acted
under duress.
Toscano claimed that he only
filed the false reports because Leonardo threatened to beat up his wife.
Toscano received no
compensation for his participation in the fraud, and argued that he
moved in an attempt to get away from Leonardo.
The prosecutor argued that
Toscano participated in the fraud because he owed Leonardo's brother
money from gambling debts.
The Trial Court convicted
Toscano of insurance fraud. He appealed.
The Trial Court found that
the threatened harm was not sufficiently imminent enough to justify
charging the jury on the defense of duress.
Under the common-law, the
defense of duress requires that
the result be death or serious bodily harm, that the threat be immediate
and aimed at the accused, and that the crime be committed be a
non-capital offense (aka not murder).
In this case, the threat
was not immediate, and against Toscano's wife.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The New Jersey Supreme Court
noted that under the common-law, duress was only a defense when the threat was "present, imminent,
and pending," such as where someone is aiming a gun at you right
now.
Toscano claimed that
Leonardo had made threats, but those threats were indistinct and not
immediate.
The Court noted that under
the common-law, when there is a threat of future harm, a person has a
duty to escape and report to the police. So duress isn't a defense.
The Court modified the
common-law of New Jersey to be more in line with Model Penal Code
§2.09. The new rule is that the
defense of duress is available for crimes other than murder
if the defendant engaged in conduct because he was coerced to do so by
the use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the
person of another, which a person of 'reasonable firmness' in his situation
would have been unable to resist.
That's a question of fact
for a jury to decide, so the case was remanded.
