State v. Metcalf
396 N.E.2d 736, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 186, 60 Ohio App. 2d 212 (1977)
Rule of Law:
The defense of duress for non-homicidal crimes extends to actions taken out of fear for the safety of others, particularly family members, and when law enforcement agents use extreme coercion to compel criminal conduct, it constitutes "entrapment by duress" (or "aggravated entrapment") requiring an acquittal as a matter of public policy, thereby rendering the defendant's predisposition irrelevant.
Facts:
- Thomas Berry, an undercover narcotics agent, confronted Bart Luff about a prior "bad drug" sale Luff made to Berry.
- Berry and Randy Imes (Berry's large associate, armed with a .357 magnum) took Luff for a ride, physically manhandled him, threatened his life, and demanded $120 repayment or "good drugs," with Imes portrayed as a "wild man" and a "mafia" member.
- Luff, unable to secure the demanded money, suggested his cousin, the defendant, might be able to assist.
- Berry and Imes drove Luff to the defendant's house where the defendant, his wife, two three-year-old children, and an adult relative were present.
- Imes entered the defendant's home armed, and Luff, in the defendant's presence, begged for money, stating his life was threatened by Imes.
- When the defendant and his wife indicated they had no available money to help Luff, the conversation shifted to providing drugs as an alternative means of repayment.
- The defendant agreed to produce a pound of marijuana if Imes would first leave the house; Imes then left, moving a short distance away.
- The defendant's wife went outside to their van, secured a brick of marijuana, and returned it to the defendant, who then gave it to Luff or directly to Berry.
- All individuals present at the defendant's house (Luff, the defendant, his wife, and the adult relative) testified to experiencing fear for themselves and the children.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was convicted by a jury in a trial court for violating R. C. 3719.44 (D) by unlawfully selling an hallucinogen (marijuana).
- The defendant appealed the conviction, challenging the trial court's limitation of the duress defense instruction, to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
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 the defense of duress for non-homicidal crimes available when the defendant acts out of fear for the safety of family members or others present, and does extreme government coercion rise to the level of "entrapment by duress" warranting acquittal, regardless of the defendant's predisposition?
Opinions:
Majority - Dowd, J.
Yes, the defense of duress for non-homicidal crimes is available when the defendant acts out of fear for the safety of family members or others whom they are bound to protect, and extreme government coercion can indeed constitute "entrapment by duress," which warrants an acquittal. The court began by considering whether the duress defense could be predicated on fear for the safety of others, finding that common law necessity defense, which is closely akin to duress, allows for action to protect oneself or those one is bound to protect. The court reasoned that both logical inference and precedent from the law of necessity dictate that duress should apply when one fears for the safety of family members. The trial court's instruction, which limited the defense to fear for the defendant's own safety, was thus an error. Furthermore, the court found that the government agents' conduct constituted "entrapment by duress" or "aggravated entrapment." This goes beyond mere solicitation, compelling criminal conduct through threats and intimidation, specifically noting the agents' presence, the display of the weapon, and the explicit threats made to Luff in the presence of the defendant's family. Such extreme coercion by law enforcement, the court held, crushes the innocent and guilty alike, making the traditional "predisposition test" for entrapment irrelevant. The court concluded that such conduct by government agents must fail as a matter of sound public policy because it is as hostile to liberty as coercing a confession. Therefore, the conviction was reversed, and a judgment of acquittal was entered.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the scope of the duress defense in non-homicidal crimes in Ohio, establishing that fear for the safety of family members or others one is bound to protect can justify criminal actions. More profoundly, it introduces and defines "entrapment by duress" (or "aggravated entrapment"), creating a public policy exception to the traditional entrapment defense's predisposition requirement. This ruling limits the methods law enforcement can use in undercover operations, emphasizing that extreme coercion by government agents is an unacceptable method of creating crime, and provides a powerful defense against charges arising from such tactics. It signals a strong judicial stance against governmental overreach in criminal investigations.
