Kuntz v. Thirteenth Judicial District Court
995 P.2d 951 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who justifiably uses deadly force has no immediate duty to render aid to their attacker but acquires a limited duty to summon medical assistance once they have fully secured their own safety from the peril created by the aggressor.
Facts:
- Bonnie Kuntz and Warren Becker lived together for approximately six years in what was described as a stormy relationship.
- On the evening of April 18, 1998, Kuntz returned to their shared mobile home to find many of her personal belongings had been destroyed and the phone ripped from the wall.
- Becker then allegedly attacked Kuntz in the kitchen, grabbing her by the hair, shaking her, and slamming her into a stove.
- During the altercation, Kuntz stabbed Becker once in the chest with a knife.
- After pushing Becker away, Kuntz went outside to 'cool off.' Upon re-entering the kitchen, she found a trail of blood leading to Becker, who was collapsed and unresponsive on the front porch.
- Kuntz then took Becker's car keys, drove several miles to a friend's house, and called her mother.
- Authorities were summoned by Kuntz's sister-in-law, who lived next door to Kuntz's mother, approximately one hour after the stabbing occurred.
- When sheriff's deputies arrived at the trailer, Becker was dead from the single stab wound.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Montana charged Bonnie Kuntz with negligent homicide in the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County (trial court).
- The State filed an amended information, adding the allegation that Kuntz caused the death by 'failing to call for medical assistance' in addition to the stabbing.
- Kuntz filed a motion to dismiss the amended information or, in the alternative, to strike the added allegation regarding her failure to seek medical assistance.
- The District Court denied Kuntz's motion.
- Kuntz, with the State's concurrence, sought a writ of supervisory control from the Supreme Court of Montana to review the trial court's order, and the Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who justifiably uses deadly force in self-defense have a legal duty to summon medical aid for their wounded attacker?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nelson
No, a person who justifiably uses force has no immediate duty to assist her aggressor while securing her own safety; however, a limited duty to summon aid is 'revived' once the person has reached a position of safety. The court reasoned that the fundamental right of self-preservation allows a victim to retreat and secure safety without any obligation to the aggressor. The duty to render aid does not require a person to remain in or return to a zone of risk. Only after the victim has fully exercised their right to become safe does a legal duty to summon aid for the original aggressor arise. For a person to be held criminally culpable for failing to perform this revived duty, the failure to summon aid—not the initial justified use of force—must be the cause-in-fact of the death.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Trieweiler
No, a person who justifiably uses deadly force has no duty, 'revived or otherwise,' to summon aid for her assailant. The dissent argues that it is inherently contradictory to state that deadly force is legally justified in certain circumstances but then to impose a common law duty to prevent the death of the assailant. This 'revived' duty is unworkable and confusing because in a case of a fatal wound, the original justified act of force, not the subsequent failure to call for aid, is always the 'but for' cause of death. A person forced to violently defend themselves should not be required, at the risk of criminal punishment, to later try to save their attacker.
Analysis:
This case establishes a novel and nuanced legal rule in Montana concerning the duty to render aid following a justifiable use of force. By creating a 'revived' duty, the court balances the established legal right of self-preservation against the 'creation of the peril' doctrine, which typically imposes a duty on those who place others in danger. The decision creates a two-stage analysis for such cases: first, whether the use of force was justified, and second, whether the defendant reached a point of safety where a duty to summon aid was revived. This precedent will significantly impact future self-defense cases by shifting the legal argument from just the moment of the attack to the defendant's subsequent actions and state of mind after the immediate threat has ceased.
Unlock the full brief for Kuntz v. Thirteenth Judicial District Court