Does a defendant have a sua sponte duty to instruct on the duress defense?

Defendant argues that even though defense counsel withdrew his request for the duress instruction following the conference in chambers, this did not relieve the court from its sua sponte duty to provide the instruction because it was not " 'clear from the record that defense counsel made an express objection to the relevant instructions' and that 'counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake.' " (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 330, disapproved on other grounds by People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201.) Of course, here defense counsel did not object to the instruction but requested it and then, following a conference in chambers, withdrew the request. Nonetheless, defendant asserts it is not clear from the record that defense counsel acted for tactical reasons. We find the record of the postchambers conference discussion suggests that defense counsel's withdrawal of his request for the duress instruction was not "out of ignorance or mistake," but rather was because defense counsel understood that "the facts in this case do not support that instruction" and his strategywhich he executed in closing argument was to argue "about duress . . . just so long as [he] didn't try to insinuate or state that it's a legal duress." Thus, it appears defense counsel made a tactical decision to withdraw his request for the

Page 14

instruction and to continue referring to duress in its colloquial, nonlegal sense in support of defendant's necessity defense. Accordingly, defendant has forfeited any claim the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the duress defense. (See People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 657-658 ["When a defense attorney makes a 'conscious, deliberate tactical choice' to forego a particular instruction, the invited error doctrine bars an argument on appeal that the instruction was omitted in error"].)