United States v. Contento-Pachon

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawDuressNecessityDefensesduressnecessityimmediacyinescapability

Facts

Contento-Pachon, a taxi driver in Bogota, was approached by Jorge, who first offered him driving work but then proposed that he swallow cocaine-filled balloons and transport them to the United States. After Contento-Pachon initially refused, Jorge revealed personal details about him and threatened to kill his wife and young child if he did not cooperate; Jorge also said Contento-Pachon would be watched throughout the trip. Contento-Pachon testified that he did not go to police in Bogota or Panama because he believed they were corrupt and feared doing so would endanger his family. When he reached customs in Los Angeles, he consented to an x-ray, which revealed cocaine in his stomach.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in excluding Contento-Pachon's duress and necessity defenses as a matter of law. More specifically, the question was whether his offer of proof was sufficient to create a triable issue on duress and whether the necessity defense was available on these facts.

Rule

A duress defense requires evidence of (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. In non-escape cases, once a defendant reaches a point where he can safely submit to authorities, that circumstance substantially overlaps with the no-reasonable-opportunity-to-escape requirement; if there is a triable issue whether he submitted at the first reasonable opportunity, the duress defense may be asserted. Necessity is unavailable where the coercion comes from human rather than physical forces and the defendant did not act to promote the general welfare.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Miami, Elena Ruiz was told by a smuggling organizer to carry narcotics on a bus to Atlanta. When she hesitated, the organizer recited her son's school, her apartment address, and her mother's work schedule, and said both would be killed if she refused; he also said one of his men would watch her throughout the trip.

At Elena's trial, the prosecution moves to exclude all evidence of duress before the jury hears it. Which is the strongest argument that the duress defense should go to the jury?

Explanation. The majority rule is that duress presents a jury issue when the defendant offers sufficient evidence of (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape. Detailed knowledge of family members and continuous surveillance can support immediacy and a well-grounded fear. The defendant need not conclusively prove duress before trial; she need only offer enough evidence to create a triable issue. (Derived from United States v. Contento-Pachon (n.d.).)