Hunt v. State
753 So. 2d 609 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of duress, which arises from coercion by another person, is not a defense to the intentional homicide of an innocent third party. The defense of necessity, which applies when physical forces create a choice of evils, is inapplicable to situations of human coercion.
Facts:
- Deidre M. Hunt, aged twenty, began an affair with her boss, Konstantinos X. Fotopoulos, who was married.
- After Fotopoulos's wife, Lisa, discovered the affair and threatened divorce, Fotopoulos began plotting to have her killed.
- Fotopoulos also believed a former employee, Kevin Ramsey, was blackmailing him over a counterfeiting operation.
- Fotopoulos took Hunt and Ramsey to a remote rifle range, where he tied Ramsey to a tree.
- While videotaping the event, Fotopoulos pointed an AK-47 rifle at Hunt's head and ordered her to kill Ramsey.
- Under this threat, Hunt shot Ramsey multiple times, killing him.
- Hunt presented expert testimony that Fotopoulos had systematically tortured and abused her, causing her to suffer from battered woman syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Procedural Posture:
- Deidre M. Hunt was charged in trial court with, among other crimes, the first-degree murder of Kevin Ramsey.
- At trial, Hunt's defense requested that the judge provide the jury with specific instructions on the defense of necessity and a special instruction on premeditation influenced by 'dominating passion.'
- The trial court denied the request for both instructions.
- The jury found Hunt guilty of first-degree murder.
- The trial court sentenced Hunt to life imprisonment with a twenty-five year mandatory minimum.
- Hunt, as the Appellant, appealed the judgment and sentence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, arguing the trial court erred by refusing her requested jury instructions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant who claims she killed an innocent person under a threat of imminent death from a third party entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, J.
No. The defense of necessity is not applicable to a homicide committed under coercion from another person; the proper defense to consider is duress, which is not a defense to homicide. The court distinguished between the defenses of duress and necessity. Necessity, or 'choice of evils,' applies when physical forces beyond the actor's control render illegal conduct the lesser of two evils. Duress, however, applies when coercion has its source in the actions of other human beings. Hunt's situation, being threatened by Fotopoulos, falls squarely under the category of duress. Following the steadfast common law rule, the court held that duress is not a defense to the intentional killing of an innocent third party. The rationale is that the law cannot justify the taking of an innocent life to save one's own, as the harm avoided is not of a greater magnitude than the harm committed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional common law distinction between the defenses of necessity and duress, refusing to expand necessity to cover cases of human coercion. It upholds the strict and long-standing principle that duress is unavailable as a defense to intentional homicide, thereby preventing a defendant from being exonerated for killing an innocent person even under the threat of their own death. This solidifies the legal doctrine that when faced with a choice between one's own life and the life of an innocent other, the law does not excuse the act of killing. The ruling also reinforces the discretion of trial courts to rely on standard jury instructions, particularly in complex areas like premeditation and passion, rather than adopting specialized and potentially confusing language from appellate opinions.
Unlock the full brief for Hunt v. State