TRAVIS HOWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Berger, June 27, 2018,
Duress- Duress is not a defense against criminal contempt of court if there is no imminent or immediate threat

Facts:
In 2016, Travis Howell was called to testify as a witness in the murder trial of Freddie Curry.
During the trial, a Baltimore Sun article noted that “Howell made a plea agreement with the federal government in a drug case and agreed to testify that Curry told him about killing Benjamin.”
Howell claimed that the next day, he was waiting to testify when he was verbally accosted and physically assaulted by five or six unidentified men who threatened him with violence for snitching. Courthouse security intervened and ejected the men from the courthouse. As the men were leaving, one of them told Howell that “you got to come out on the street sometime.” The men were not detained or arrested. Within five minutes of the altercation, Howell was called to the stand.
Once called, Howell answered every question by saying, “I respectfully refuse to testify.” This was despite being given immunity for his testimony.
And this extended to every question asked. For example, when asked “What kind of shoes are you wearing this afternoon?” Howell responded, “I respectfully refuse to testify.”
Because of this, Howell was held in contempt of court.
When Howell’s contempt case came to trial, Howell argued that he could not be found in contempt because he was under duress at the time.
The trial court disagreed. Howell was eventually convicted and sentenced to five years with all but time served suspended.
Howell appealed, arguing that he failed to testify because he was in fear for his life.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals held that because there was no imminent or immediate threat against Howell, duress did not apply.

Duress – Duress is a defense to all crimes except taking the life of an innocent person

Duress – Duress requires:
– That the subject believed that he was in immediate or impending danger of death or serious bodily harm
– That belief was reasonable
– There was no reasonable opportunity to escape
– The subject committed the crime because of that duress

Duress – Fear or a previous threat of violence is not enough, by itself, to qualify as duress

From the Case: Howell’s claim of duress comes from “the altercation that occurred in the courthouse hallway on March 10, 2016, when five or six men threatened him with violence and told Howell, ‘you got to come out on the street sometime.'” However, “the men were subsequently removed from the courthouse by security. At the time Howell was on the witness stand, refusing to testify, the alleged assailants were not present and, therefore, did not present an ‘imminent’ or ‘impending’ threat to Howell’s safety… Furthermore, at no time did Howell request assistance from the court after the threatening incident in the courthouse corridor. If Howell had requested a security escort, for example, the escort could have, at a minimum, removed any potential immediacy from the threat. For these reasons, we hold that the duress defense
was not generated by the facts alleged by Howell.”