PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID M WHITING

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED July 25, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 189731 Jackson Circuit Court LC No. 95-072413 FH DAVID M. WHITING, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Jansen, P.J., and Wahls and P.R. Joslyn*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. A circuit court jury convicted defendant of escape, MCL 750.193; MSA 28.390. He was thereafter sentenced to two to six years imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). On the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it precluded defendant from presenting a duress defense, albeit for a reason not relied upon by the trial court. A defendant is not entitled to present a duress defense to the trier of fact unless there is some evidence from which each element of the defense may be inferred. People v Lemons, 454 Mich 234; 562 NW2d 447 (1997); People v Sekoian, 169 Mich App 609, 614; 426 NW2d 412 (1988). Accordingly, an escapee may not present a duress defense unless the escapee has sufficient evidence showing a present, imminent and impending threat of conduct which made the escape necessary. Lemons, supra; Sekoian, supra at 614-615. Threats of future injury will not excuse an escape. People v Hubbard, 115 Mich App 73, 78; 320 NW2d 294 (1982). Here, defendant’s offer of proof establishes only a threat of future harm. A threat of this nature does not entitle defendant to assert a duress defense. Moreover, defendant has forfeited his defense of duress by failing to turn himself in to authorities immediately after the escape. Lemons, supra. Because defendant was not entitled to assert a duress defense, the trial court did not err when it refused to instruct the jury concerning the defense, People v Gimotty, 216 Mich App 254, 257; 549 * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ NW2d 39 (1996), and when it refused to allow defendant a continuance to comply with MCL 768.21b; MSA 28.1044(2), Sekoian, supra at 613-614. Affirmed. /s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Myron H. Wahls /s/ Patrick R. Joslyn -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.