In People v. Ramsdell, 230 Mich App 386, 400-401; 585 NW2d 1 (1998), the Court stated that duress is not available as a defense for all crimes, but rather, it is an affirmative defense that is available only in situations "where the crime avoids a greater harm." The Court reaffirmed that mere threats of future injury are insufficient to support a defense of duress. Id. at 401. "Rather the threatened danger must be present, imminent, and impending." Id. In Ramsdell, after hearing testimony outside of the jury's presence to determine if the defense could be advanced, the trial court found that it could not be established. Id. The Court agreed: Defendant's offer of proof outside the jury's presence involved only a threat of future harm by Williams if defendant did not take possession of the package that contained the marijuana. Indeed, defendant indicated that he proceeded toward the "chow hall" with the package after Williams gave it to him without any threat of imminent harm. Even if the defense of duress is available to a charge of prisoner in possession of contraband, the trial court precluded defendant from placing this issue before the jury because defendant did not establish a prima facie defense of duress.