People v. Anderson
28 Cal. 4th 767, 50 P.3d 368, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Penal Code section 26, the defense of duress is not available for any form of murder. The statutory exception for crimes 'punishable with death' is interpreted based on the state of the law in 1850, when all murder was a capital offense, effectively codifying the common law rule that one must resist killing an innocent person, even at the risk of one's own life.
Facts:
- A group of people, including defendant Anderson and Ron Kiem, confronted Margaret Armstrong at a camp, suspecting her of molesting two children.
- Members of the group dragged Armstrong to a field, beat her, tied her naked to a bush, and abandoned her.
- Later, Anderson and Kiem saw Armstrong walking naked down a street.
- The two men grabbed Armstrong, forced her into Kiem's car, placed her screaming into a duct-taped sleeping bag, and put her in the car's trunk.
- Kiem told Anderson to retrieve a large rock.
- According to Anderson, Kiem threatened him, saying, 'Give me the rock or I’ll beat the shit out of you.'
- Anderson gave the rock to Kiem, who then appeared to hit Armstrong with it, silencing her. Other testimony suggested Anderson also dropped a boulder on her head.
- Kiem later stomped on Armstrong's neck to ensure she was dead, and he and Anderson disposed of her body in a ravine.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Anderson with kidnapping and first-degree murder in a California trial court.
- At trial, Anderson requested a jury instruction on the defense of duress, based on his testimony that he was threatened by his accomplice, Kiem.
- The trial court refused to give the jury a duress instruction as a defense to the murder charge.
- The jury convicted Anderson of first-degree murder and kidnapping.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that duress is not a defense to first-degree murder.
- The Supreme Court of California granted Anderson's petition for review.
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 the defense of duress apply to a charge of murder under California Penal Code section 26?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No. Duress is not a defense to any form of murder in California, nor can it reduce murder to manslaughter. The court held that Penal Code section 26, which creates a duress defense for crimes not 'punishable with death,' codified the common law rule as it existed when the statute's predecessor was enacted in 1850. In 1850, all murder was a capital offense, meaning the legislature intended to exclude all murder from the duress defense permanently. The court reasoned that the Legislature did not intend for the substantive law of duress to fluctuate with subsequent changes in death penalty jurisprudence, as this would create anomalous and random results. Furthermore, creating a new form of manslaughter for killings under duress is a legislative function, not a judicial one. While duress is not a complete defense, it can be a defense to felony murder if it negates the underlying felony, and evidence of duress may be relevant to whether a defendant premeditated or acted with implied malice.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
Yes. The defense of duress should apply to non-capital forms of murder, such as second-degree murder, though not to capital murder. This opinion disagrees with the majority's legal reasoning but concurs in affirming the conviction because the defendant failed to present substantial evidence of duress. The dissent argues that the phrase 'punishable with death' in Penal Code section 26 is a general reference to capital punishment laws that should be interpreted as they change over time. Because only first-degree murder with special circumstances is currently a capital offense, duress should be a valid defense to all other forms of murder. This interpretation is consistent with how other Penal Code sections using similar language have been construed. The majority's bright-line rule could lead to absurd results, such as denying the defense to a driver forced by armed carjackers to drive recklessly, resulting in a death.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a long-standing ambiguity in California law by firmly establishing that duress is never a defense to murder. By fixing the interpretation of Penal Code section 26 to the historical context of 1850, the court created a stable, bright-line rule that is not dependent on the fluctuating landscape of death penalty law. The ruling reinforces the common law principle that an individual has a duty to resist killing an innocent person, even at the peril of their own life. It leaves any potential mitigation for such killings, like creating a new form of manslaughter, squarely in the hands of the Legislature, thereby respecting the separation of powers.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Anderson