State v. Scott

Supreme Court of Kansas
250 Kan. 350, 827 P.2d 733 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of compulsion if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, shows the coercion was not continuous and the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatening situation.

Facts:

On September 7, 1989, after a drug transaction dispute, LaMacey Woods accused 14-year-old Charles Green of mishandling his money.
At Woods' house, Woods directed Sedrick Scott and others to assault Green.
Scott participated in the assault by hitting Green, tying his hands, removing his shirt, and cutting his arm with a razor blade.
After this initial assault, Woods instructed Scott to take Green with him to sell drugs.
Scott instead took Green to a club, bought him food and a drink, and then left, allowing Green to go home alone.
On September 11, Scott located Green at a different club, placed a gun in his side, and forced him to go outside to a car where Woods was waiting.
Scott rode in the car back to Woods' house, sitting next to Green while in possession of the gun.
At the house, Scott again participated in torturing Green by tying his hands and removing his shirt while Woods and others burned, stabbed, and beat Green.

Procedural Posture:

Sedrick Scott was tried before a jury in a state trial court.
The trial court denied Scott's request to provide the jury with an instruction on the defense of compulsion.
The jury convicted Scott of two counts of aggravated battery, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of aggravated kidnapping.
Scott filed a direct appeal of his convictions to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the state.

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 who participates in criminal acts under the direction of another, but who is not always in the director's presence and has the means to leave, have the right to a jury instruction on the defense of compulsion?

Opinions:

Majority - Abbott, J.

No. A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of compulsion when the evidence fails to establish the required elements of the defense. To claim compulsion, the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm must be continuous, and the defendant must have had no reasonable opportunity to escape. Here, Scott had numerous opportunities to escape: he had his own car, did not live with Woods, and was not continuously in Woods' presence. After the first attack, Scott was alone with Green and could have sought help or simply not returned. By returning on September 11 and actively participating in the second kidnapping and assault, he demonstrated that the coercion was not continuous and that he had reasonable opportunities to avoid committing the crimes. Furthermore, under K.S.A. 21-3209(2), the compulsion defense is unavailable to a defendant who willfully places himself in a situation where such coercion is probable, such as by associating with a violent gang and participating in criminal drug activity.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for the compulsion defense, emphasizing that a general fear of a criminal associate is insufficient. The court's focus on the defendant's 'reasonable opportunity to escape' creates a high bar, effectively negating the defense if the coercion is not constant and immediate. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for lower-level members of criminal organizations to argue they were forced to commit crimes, as any period of time away from the threatening principal can be construed as a chance to disassociate or contact authorities.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Scott (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"