Criminal
Jul. 31, 2002
Supreme Court Rejects Duress As a Defense For Murder
SACRAMENTO - Duress cannot be a defense to murder, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case that reaffirms a traditional principle of the common law.
Addressing a related issue for the first time, the court also held that duress cannot reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter.
On the issue of duress as a defense to murder, Justice Ming W. Chin began his opinion by citing a venerable authority.
"Over two centuries ago, William Blackstone, the great commentator on the common law, said that duress is no excuse for killing an innocent person," Chin wrote for the 6-1 majority in People v. Anderson, 2002 DJDAR 8456.
Continuing to quote Blackstone, he wrote: "[T]hough a man be violently assaulted, and hath no other possible means of escaping death but by killing an innocent person, this fear and force shall not acquit him of murder; for he ought rather to die himself than escape by the murder of an innocent."
The justices said they granted review "to decide whether these words apply in California."
"We conclude that, as in Blackstone's England, so today in California: fear for one's own life does not justify killing an innocent person," the court held. "Duress is not a defense to murder."
Responding to a defense argument, the justices also held that under current state law, duress cannot reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter.
"Although one may debate whether a killing under duress should be manslaughter rather than murder, if a new form of manslaughter is to be created, the Legislature, not this court, should do it," Chin wrote.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Justices Marvin R. Baxter, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Janice R. Brown and Carlos R. Moreno, joined in Chin's opinion.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, the sole dissenter, objected strongly to the majority's statutory construction.
To achieve its result, the majority took a historical approach to a 150-year-old statute that makes duress available as a defense in all crimes "unless the crime be punishable by death."
The majority said that all forms of murder were punishable by death when the statute was drafted in 1850, and therefore duress could not be used as a defense in any form of murder.
But Kennard argued that the statute, Penal Code Section 26, should be interpreted according to today's law.
"Applying established rules of statutory construction, I would hold that duress is unavailable as a defense only when the offense is capital murder-that is, first-degree murder with a special circumstance-and that duress is available as a defense to all noncapital forms of murder," she wrote.
In Anderson, defendant Robert Neal Anderson was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping, without a special-circumstance charge.
According to the court, Anderson and another man used large rocks to beat to death a female camp counselor whom they believed had molested two young girls, including the second man's daughter.
Anderson claimed he participated in the beating death, by helping to locate a cantaloupe-size rock, only because he was threatened with a beating himself by his larger and stronger companion.
Testifying on his own behalf at trial, Anderson said the man told him: "Give me the rock or I'll beat the shit out of you."
Both the majority and Kennard agreed there was insufficient evidence in the case to support a jury instruction for duress, but they disagreed on the general rule regarding duress as a defense to homicide.
One legal expert said the case simply confirmed what has been a long-standing principle of the common law.
Only a handful of states allow a defense of duress to murder, and just a few British and American cases have made "minor inroads" into the common law rule, said Michael Vitiello, a professor of criminal law at Sacramento's McGeorge School of Law.
"The fear is that somebody starts putting pressure on you and says, 'Do this or I'll kill you,'" he said. "Duress is also one of those defenses that is easy to fabricate."
The deputy attorney general who argued the case said the high court ruling will help prosecutors deal with crimes involving multiple defendants.
"This will have a positive impact on law enforcement because gang members and terrorists are not going to be able to point at each other and say they were not guilty because they were coerced to kill," said Moona Nandi, of San Francisco.
The defense lawyer who argued on behalf of Anderson, Neoma Doris Kenwood, of Berkeley, could not be reached for comment Monday.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com