more seriously injured. The State responds that none 'of the threats made against Kelly were contingent on Defendant's failure to participate. However, we read Defendant's argument to apply to the totality of the situation;. in other words, that Defendant,, believed physical harm was going to befall Kelly imminently unless Defendant did something to mitigate or prevent it: Nevertheless, we are unconvinced that a mitigation defense-ie., that Defendant's assault of Kelly was necessary to forestall the other assailants from killing or battering Kelly-constitutee a compulsion defense. Compulsion, by the terms of the statute, occurs only when the actor "was coerced" to perform the criminal act, See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-302(1); see also State v. Maama, 2015 UT App 234, ¶ 15, 359 P.3d 1266 (<HOLDING>). We are unaware of any case holding that the
holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery holding that a robbery defendant was not entitled to a compulsion instruction in the absence of a claim that he or the victim was the target of a specific threat forcing the defendant to participate in the robbery holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding first degree murder instruction not warranted because defendant adduced no evidence that victim was not murdered during commission of robbery