MPC § 2.09: Duress
What does Duress (Model Penal Code) provide?
Section 2.09 establishes the defense of duress under the Model Penal Code. It provides that it is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the conduct because they were coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against their person or the person of another, that a person of reasonable firmness in the actor's situation would have been unable to resist. This standard focuses on whether the coercion was so overwhelming that a person of reasonable firmness could not have resisted.
Source: Model Penal Code § 2.09
3-day free trial, then $9.99/month. Cancel anytime.
Summary
Section 2.09 establishes the defense of duress under the Model Penal Code. It provides that it is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the conduct because they were coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against their person or the person of another, that a person of reasonable firmness in the actor's situation would have been unable to resist. This standard focuses on whether the coercion was so overwhelming that a person of reasonable firmness could not have resisted.
The MPC's duress defense is notably broader than the common law defense in several respects. It is not limited to threats of death or serious bodily harm — any unlawful force may qualify. It is available for all offenses, including (controversially) murder. And the test is objective but with some subjective elements, as the "person of reasonable firmness in the actor's situation" language allows consideration of individual characteristics of the defendant relevant to their ability to resist.
Section 2.09(2) addresses situations where the actor recklessly placed themselves in a situation in which they would be subjected to duress. In such cases, the duress defense is unavailable for any offense for which recklessness suffices. Similarly, under Section 2.09(3), if the actor was negligent in placing themselves in the situation, the defense is unavailable for offenses requiring only negligence. This creates a logical parallel with the culpability framework — your fault in getting into the coercive situation maps onto the mental state of the offense charged.
Key Provisions
5 essential provisions of § 2.09
Affirmative defense: actor was coerced by use or threat of unlawful force against them or another that a person of reasonable firmness in their situation would have been unable to resist
Available for all crimes, including murder (unlike common law)
Not limited to threats of death or serious bodily harm — any unlawful force qualifies
If actor recklessly placed themselves in the coercive situation, defense unavailable for crimes requiring only recklessness
If actor negligently placed themselves in the coercive situation, defense unavailable for crimes requiring only negligence
MPC vs. Common Law
How the MPC approach to duress differs from common law
The common law duress defense was significantly more restrictive. It typically required a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm, the threat had to be directed at the defendant (not a third party, in many jurisdictions), the defendant could not have had a reasonable opportunity to escape, and — most significantly — duress was never a defense to murder. The MPC eliminates the murder exception, reasoning that the question should always be whether a person of reasonable firmness could have resisted. The MPC also drops the imminency requirement found in common law, instead focusing on whether the threat was sufficient to overcome reasonable firmness. The "reasonable firmness in the actor's situation" standard is more flexible than the common law's rigid requirements, allowing consideration of the defendant's particular circumstances while maintaining an objective baseline.
Exam Relevance
How § 2.09 appears on criminal law exams
Duress questions frequently appear on exams, often in combination with murder charges or complicity. The classic test: D is threatened by a gang leader and told to participate in a robbery or murder. Under the MPC, analyze whether a person of reasonable firmness in D's situation could have resisted. Key issues include: whether duress can apply to murder (yes under MPC, no at common law — a critical distinction to note); whether the defendant recklessly placed themselves in the situation (e.g., by joining the gang); and what characteristics of the defendant's "situation" are relevant to the reasonable firmness standard. Compare and contrast with the common law approach for full credit. Students should also distinguish duress from necessity (Section 3.02) — duress involves human threats, while necessity involves natural circumstances.
Related Sections
Sections frequently studied alongside § 2.09
More from Article 2 — General Principles of Liability
Other sections in Article 2