State v. Metcalf

396 N.E.2d 786 (1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Berry, an undercover narcotics agent, confronted Bart Luff about an earlier 'bad drug' sale made by Luff to Berry. Berry was accompanied by Randy Imes. Imes, whose exact relationship with the Multi-County Narcotics Bureau was not disclosed, stands six feet two inches tall and weighs 275 pounds. He is the son of a deputy sheriff. Berry and Imes, took Luff for a ride in Berry's automobile where he was physically manhandled by Imes, made to believe that his life was threatened, and told by Berry that Luff was to return the $120 previously paid by Berry for the bad drugs or, in the alternative, deliver good drugs. Berry and Imes showed a .357 magnum revolver. Luff contended that he was threatened by Imes with the loaded .357 magnum. Imes and Berry admitted that they had a weapon, but each denied that Luff was directly threatened with it. Luff was told that Imes had purchased the 'bad drugs' and that Imes was a wild man and a member of the 'family' as in the 'mafia.' Luff was out of luck and friends when it was suggested that his cousin, D, might be of assistance. When they arrived at D's house, D, his wife, an adult relative, the three-year-old child of D and his wife, and another three-year-old child were present. Imes entered D's home armed with the magnum wrapped in a jacket thrown over his arm. Luff begged D for the money to save his life which he declared was threatened by Imes. Eventually, D agreed to produce a pound of marijuana if Imes would first leave the house. Imes left, going a short distance away. D's wife then went outside to their van, secured a brick of marijuana and D gave it to Luff and, by the testimony of Berry, gave it directly to Berry. D was indicted and tried. At trial, all the parties in the house testified about the fear for themselves and the children. Imes readily admitted the intimidation of Luff and his armed presence in the house while the demand for money, or in the alternative, a demand for drugs, was made. D was convicted. The issue raised on appeal was the trial court's limitation of the defense of duress to the fear which D entertained on his own behalf, excluding the jury's consideration of D's concern for the safety of his family.