Coercion

Constraint; compulsion; force. Direct or positive coercion takes place ample, when a man falls into the hands of the enemies of his country, and they compel him, by a just fear of death, to fight against it See Grossmeyer v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cls. (U. S.) 1; Miller v. L'.

S., 4 I S.) 2S8; Padelford v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI S.) 317.

Implied coercion exists whore a legally under subjeetiou to another, and is induced, in consequence of such suhj. to do an act contrary to his will. As will is necessary to the commission of a crime or the making of a contract, a person actually coerced into either has no will on the subject, and is not responsibl East, PI.

Cr. 225; 5 Q. B. 279; Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 90 Pa. 161. The command of a superior to an inferior; United St a; Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 209, 220, Fed. Cas. No. 15, ■!'•)!; Com. v. Blodgett, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 5G; Harmony v. Mitchell, 1 l Uatchf. 549, Fed. Cas. No. 6,0^2; Mitchell v. tiarmony, 13 How. (U. S.) 115.

14 L. Ed. 75; of a parent to a child; Broom, Max. 11; of a master to his servant, or a principal to his agent; Hays v. State, 13 Mo. 246; Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 279; Kliffield v. State, 4 How. (Miss.) 304; State v. Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32; do not amount to coercion. As to persons acting under the constraint of superior power, and, therefore, not criminally amenable, the principal case is that of married women, with respect to whom the law recognizes certain presumptions. Thus, if a wife commits a felony, other than treason or homicide, or, perhaps, highway robbery, in company with her husband, the law presumes that she acted under his coercion, and, consequently, without any guilty intent, unless the fact of non-coercion is distinctly proved; Clarke, Cr. L. 77.

See Com. v. Eagan, 103 Mass. 71; State v. Williams, 65 N. C. SOS.

This presumption appears on some occasions to have been considered conclusive, and is still practically regarded in no very different light, especially when the crime is of a flagrant character; hut the hotter opinion seems to be that in every case the presumption may now be rebutted by positive proof that the woman acted as a free agent; and in one case that was much discussed, the Irish judges appear to have considered that sueh positive proof was not required, but that the question was always one to be determined by the jury on the evidence submitted to them; Jebb#93; 1 Mood. 143. It seems that a married w<h man cannot be convicted under any circumstances as a receiver of stolen goods, when the property has been taken by her husband and given to her by him; 1 Dearsl.

184.

Husband and wife were jointly charged with felonious wounding with intent to disfigure and to do grievous bodily harm. The personally inflict any violence on the prosecutor. On this finding, the wife was held entitled to an acquittal; 1 Dearsl. & B. 553. Whether the doctrine of coercion extends to any misdemeanor may admit of some doubt; but the better opinion seems to be tbat, provided the misdemeanor is of a serious nature, as, for instance, the uttering of base coin, the wife will be protected in like manner as in cages of felony; although it has been distinctly held that the protection does not extend to assaults and batteries or the offence of keeping a brothel; Russ. Cr. 38; 2 Lew. 229; 8 C. & P. 19, 541; Com. v. Lewis, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 151; Com. v. Neal, 10 Mass. 152, 6 Am. Dec. 105. Indeed, it is probable tbat in all inferior misdemeanors this presumption, if admitted at all, would be held liable to be defeated by far less stringent evidence of the wife's active co-operation than would suffice in cases of felony; 8 C. & P. 541; 2 Mood. 53. There is coercion only when the husband is present; it does not extend to treason, murder and grave felonies; 2 C. & K. 903; it extends to the lesser felonies and most misdemeanors, and even in these the circumstances may repel the presumption of coercion; 8 C. & P. 554. If itx appear that she took the leading part, his presence will not protect her; 12 Cox 45. If she acted in his absence, no presumption of coercion arises; she is a principal; Russ & Ry. 270. A wife is not chargeable with guilt until the presumption of coercion has been removed; State v. Harvey, 130 la. 394, 106 N. W. 93S; there is a presumption of coercion if the husband was present, but it may be rebutted; Com. v. Adams, 186 Mass. 101, 71 N. E. 78; her conduct alone at the time may suffice to overcome a presumption; id. Where the wife of a convicted murderer at his instigation shot the revolver, the offence was committed in the husband's presence and there was nothing to rebut the presumption of coercion; State v. Miller, 162 Mo. 253, 62 S. W. 692, 85 Am. St. Rep. 498. If it appears that the wife was not urged by the husband, but was the inciter, she is liable; People v. Ryland, 2 N. Y. Cr. R. 441. In the case of a disorderly house, they are both equally guilty; State v. Jones, 53 W. Va. 613, 45 S. E. 916. The marriage need not be strictly proved; reputation is sufficient proof of marriage; but mere cohabitation is not; Odgers, C. L. 1347.

See 1 B. & H. Lead. Cr. Cas. 76; Duress.