People v. Kearns
55 Cal.App.4th 1128, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 654, 55 Cal. App. 2d 1128 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In California, a defendant's subjective but unreasonable belief that they are acting under duress does not negate the specific intent to steal required for the crime of robbery.
Facts:
- In the spring of 1995, 18-year-old Happy Germaine Kearns was repeatedly threatened, beaten, and raped by Lemont Scott.
- On May 3, 1995, Scott put a gun to Kearns's head and forced her to rob a 7-Eleven store by pretending a piece of wood in her pocket was a gun.
- On May 23, 1995, after finding Kearns at a friend's home, Scott hit her on the head with his gun and forced her to rob a Circle K convenience store.
- Following the Circle K robbery, Scott raped Kearns again.
- On June 1, 1995, Scott beat Kearns and accused her of stealing his gun, forcing her to rob a Unocal 76 gas station to repay him.
- Immediately after the Unocal robbery, Scott told Kearns the money was insufficient, hit her when she objected, and drove her to a Subway sandwich shop.
- Scott promised Kearns it would be the 'last one' and she would be free of him, after which Kearns committed the robbery, later testifying she did it because she 'liked the sound of that.'
- During the robberies for which she was convicted, victims testified that Kearns appeared calm, in a hurry, or did not appear scared or injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Happy Germaine Kearns was charged in a California superior court (trial court) with multiple counts of robbery and commercial burglary.
- At trial, Kearns asserted the defense of duress.
- Kearns requested special jury instructions stating that her honest but unreasonable belief of danger could negate the specific intent for robbery, but the trial court refused to give them.
- The jury acquitted Kearns of the charges related to the first (7-Eleven) robbery but convicted her on all counts related to the three subsequent robberies.
- Kearns filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Kearns (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 defendant's unreasonable, but honest, belief that their life is in immediate danger if they do not commit a robbery negate the specific intent to steal, which is an essential element of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - McKintyre, J.
No. An unreasonable belief that a defendant is acting under duress will not negate the requisite specific intent to deprive the owner of property in a robbery. The court rejected Kearns's proposed jury instructions because they were contrary to established California law. Citing the California Supreme Court case People v. Bacigalupo, the court affirmed that the defense of duress requires an objectively reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. The court found no basis to limit the holding of Bacigalupo to its specific facts, and therefore, Kearns's purely subjective and unreasonable belief could not serve to negate the specific intent to steal.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective standard for the duress defense in California, particularly as it applies to specific intent crimes like robbery. It clarifies that a defendant cannot use a subjective, unreasonable fear to argue they lacked the necessary criminal intent. The ruling prevents the duress defense from becoming a loophole based on a defendant's potentially distorted perception of danger. This solidifies the principle that for a threat to excuse a crime, the fear it creates must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would have experienced.
