State v. Hunter
740 P.2d 559 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of compulsion is available to a defendant charged with felony murder if the defendant was compelled to commit the underlying felony, as the statutory preclusion of the defense applies only to crimes of intentional killing.
Facts:
- James C. Hunter, a hitchhiker, accepted a ride from Mark Walters, Lisa Dunn, and Daniel Remeta.
- During the drive, Remeta displayed two handguns, bragged about previous murders he had committed, and made threats toward Hunter.
- When their vehicle was stopped by Undersheriff Benjamin F. Albright, Remeta shot and wounded the officer.
- The group then drove to the Bartlett Elevator, where Remeta shot manager Maurice Christie.
- At the elevator, two employees, Rick Schroeder and Glenn Moore, were forced into a pickup truck as hostages.
- Hunter contended that Remeta threatened to kill him if he did not follow orders and that he participated in the events at the elevator out of fear for his life.
- After leaving the elevator, Remeta drove the hostages to a remote location and killed both of them.
Procedural Posture:
- James C. Hunter was charged with two counts of felony murder and multiple other felonies in the state trial court.
- Co-defendant Daniel Remeta entered a plea of guilty to all charges prior to trial.
- The trial court denied Hunter's motion for a separate trial from his other co-defendant, Lisa Dunn.
- At the conclusion of a joint jury trial, Hunter requested a jury instruction on the defense of compulsion.
- The trial judge refused to give the compulsion instruction, believing it was unavailable for a defendant charged with felony murder.
- The jury found Hunter guilty on all counts.
- Hunter appealed his convictions to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is the state's highest court.
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 statutory prohibition against using the compulsion defense for the crime of murder extend to a charge of felony murder when the defendant claims they were compelled to participate only in the underlying felony and did not commit the killing?
Opinions:
Majority - Lockett, J.
No. The statutory limitation on the compulsion defense is restricted to crimes of intentional killing and does not bar its use as a defense to felony murder. The court reasoned that the felony-murder rule holds a person responsible for a death that occurs during a dangerous felony. However, if a defendant's participation in the underlying felony was justified by compulsion, then the defendant is not guilty of that felony. Consequently, if the defendant cannot be convicted of the underlying felony due to a valid compulsion defense, they cannot be convicted of felony murder, which is predicated on the commission of that felony. The court adopted the reasoning of commentators that one should not lose the defense of duress for a lesser crime, like robbery, just because the coercer unexpectedly kills someone during its commission.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the compulsion defense in Kansas, establishing that it can be applied in felony murder cases. It creates a critical distinction between a defendant who intentionally kills (and cannot claim compulsion) and an accomplice who is coerced into participating only in the underlying felony. The ruling establishes a precedent requiring trial courts to instruct juries on compulsion in felony murder prosecutions whenever there is sufficient evidence that the defendant's involvement in the predicate felony was not voluntary. This protects defendants who may have been victims of coercion themselves from being held strictly liable for a murder committed by their coercer.
