Also known as: persons of reasonable resolution · reasonable firmness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An objective standard measuring whether a threat or use of unlawful force would overcome an ordinary person's ability to resist. The standard evaluates the gravity and immediacy of the coercion in light of the actor's situation to determine if compliance is excusable.
Carla walked to her car when Victor and armed associates confronted her. Victor displayed a live video of her son and threatened to kill him immediately unless Carla wheeled a sedated victim to their van. Carla complied and later raised duress. The threat of deadly force against her child was one a person of reasonable firmness in her situation could not resist.
Ida operated a crane twenty stories up when Silas ordered her to lift an overloaded pallet. Silas threatened that his men would throw her from the building if she refused. Ida complied and faced reckless endangerment charges. The immediate lethal threat while trapped high above ground was one a person of reasonable firmness in her situation could not resist.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The standard asks whether a person of reasonable firmness in the defendant's situation would be unable to resist a threat of unlawful force against the defendant or another. A threat to kill the defendant's child satisfies the test when the coercion is immediate and deadly.
Supporting sources
The defense is unavailable if the actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. Continued association with a violent group after repeated warnings constitutes such recklessness.
Supporting sources
Training forms part of the actor's situation. When training supplies realistic noncompliant options that a trained person could use without immediately triggering lethal harm, the defense may fail even though an untrained civilian might succeed.
Supporting sources
No. The test is whether a person of reasonable firmness would have been unable to resist the coercion. Conscious compliance under overwhelming threat still qualifies when the threat meets the objective threshold.
Supporting sources
…another person not his spouse by forcible compulsion; or by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution; or who is unconscious; or who is incapable of consent because of a mental deficiency which would preclude the person of consenting. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 3121. The same criteria apply to the crime…