COERCION. Constraint; compulsion ; force.
Direct or positive coercion takes place when a man is by physical force compelled to do an act contrary to his will: for ex ample, when a man falls into the hands of the enemies of his country, and they com pel him, by a just fear of death, to fight against it. See Grossmeyer v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cls. (U. S.) 1; Miller v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cls. (U. S.) 288; Padelford v. U. S., 4 Ct. Cls. (U. S.) 317.
Implied coercion exists where a person is legally under subjection to another, and is induced, in consequence of such subjection, 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 per son actually coerced into either has no will on the subject, and is not responsible ; 1 East, Pl. Cr. 225; 5 Q. B. 279; Griffith v. Sitgreaves, 90 Pa. 161. The command of a superior to an inferior ; United States v. Jones, 3 Wash. C. C. 209, 220, Fed. (Jas. No. 15,494; Com. v. Blodgett, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 56; Harmony v. Mitchell, 1 Blatchf. 549, Fed. Cas. No. 6,082; Mitchell v. harmony, 13 How. (U. S.) 115, 14 L. Ed. 75; of a par ent 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 ; Klifl3eld 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 crim inally 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 coer cion, 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. Wil liams, 65 N. C. 398. This presumption ap pears on some occasions to have been con sidered conclusive, and is still practically re garded in no very different light, especially when the crime is of a flagrant character ; but the better opinion seems to be that in every case the presumption may now be re butted by positive proof that the woman act ed as a free agent ; and in one case that was much discussed, the Irish' judges appear to have considered that such 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 wo man cannot be convicted under any circum stances as a receiver of stolen goods, when the property has been taken by her hus band and given to her by him; 1 Dearsl.
184.
Husband and wife were ,jointly charged with felonious wounding with intent to dis figure and to do g,rievous bodily harm. The jury found that the wife acted under the co ercion of the husband, and that she did not personally inflict any violence on the cutor. 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 that, provided the misdemeanor is of a se rious nature, as, for instance, the uttering of base coin, the wife will be protected in like manner as in cares of felony; although it has been distinctly held that the protec tion does not extend to assaults and bat teries or the offence of keeping a brothel ; Russ. Cr. 38; 2 Lew. 229; 8 C. dr P. 19, 541; Corn. v. Lewis, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 151; Com. v. Neal, 10 Mass. 152, 6 Am. Dec. 105. Indeed, it is probable that in all inferior misdemean ors 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 mis demeanors, and even in these the circum stances may repel the presumption of coer cion ; 8 C. & P. 554. If it 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 remov ed; State v. Harvey, 130 Ia. 394, 106 N. W. 938; 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 presump tion 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.