United States v. Lopez

Facts

D was twenty-seven years old at the time of the crimes at issue. D dated Karaca when the two were teenagers. The relationship ended when Karaca was sentenced to eight-years imprisonment in 2006 for a convenience-store shooting. Karaca was released from prison during the Fall of 2013, but mere weeks later, police were searching for him in connection with a double homicide in Phoenix, Arizona. Karaca arrived at D's home in Tucson, where she lived with her mother, her identical twin sister, her sister's two young children, and a teenage sibling. Karaca and Lopez spoke for several hours and drank together. Karaca eventually admitted to D that night that he was 'on the run' from the police due to a shooting and asked her if she knew where he could get a gun. She told him she did not, and Karaca accepted her answer. He later began making sexual advances suggesting that they restart their relationship. D initially rejected these overtures, telling Karaca that she was currently involved with someone else. D 'push[ed] him away' and, 'told him no . . . but he didn't stop' and 'so she just gave in.' Karaca eventually left without further incident. Two days later, Karaca returned and again asked her about acquiring a gun. She explained to him at this point that she could not purchase a gun or 'be around' one because she was on probation on a felony drug conviction. Karaca responded by grabbing D by the arm and threatening that if she failed to get him a gun, 'he [would] come back and shoot up [her] house and he [would] hurt [her] family.' Several days later, Karaca returned to D's home and was limping. He told her that he was in a 'shootout' in the desert during a drug deal and was shot in the leg. D later testified at her trial that Karaca's reference to a 'shootout' made her believe that he already had a gun, which increased her fear that he would harm her family. Four days later, Karaca returned and demanded that D purchase a gun for him that day from a nearby pawnshop. She again responded that she was on probation. Karaca then insisted that D pose as her identical twin sister during the purchase, demanding that they go to Lopez's home and retrieve her sister's ID. D made various excuses as to why she could not obtain the ID that day. Karaca grabbed her again and threatened: 'I already told you what I was going to do if you don't get this gun for me. I know you don't want anything happening to your mom or your sisters.' The two retrieved the ID and went to the pawnshop that same day, where D purchased a Ruger pistol using the ID and her sister's identifying information. Shortly after she left the store, Karaca grabbed her purse, removed the gun, and walked away. Two days later, D saw Karaca one last time before her arrest. The two went together to a family barbeque hosted by her twin sister's ex-husband, who was also Karaca's friend. The three left the party at one point to go to the store, where Karaca accused D of flirting with her sister's ex-husband and slapped her in the face. Karaca initially left but eventually returned to the party. Later that evening, Karaca grabbed D's arm and told her he would 'f--- [her] up, and no one will do anything about it.' D's probation officer found the pawnshop receipt in D's purse, and she admitted that she had purchased a gun for Karaca. D also stated she was seeing Karaca romantically, referring to him at one point as 'my man.' D did not explain to the officers at this juncture why she had bought the gun for Karaca and did not claim that Karaca had threatened her. D was sent to jail. The following day, two ATF interviewed D and she claimed that she had purchased the gun for Karaca because he had threatened her and her family. D asked the district court to allow her to introduce expert testimony on Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) and the effects of past abuse. D, who had been physically and sexually abused by her stepfather, contended that this evidence would 'help provide context' to the jury regarding her fear of Karaca and why she did not seek help from the police. D asserted that the expert's description of the 'characteristics of a domestic violence victim' would help explain her 'counterintuitive' behavior regarding Karaca. The court excluded this evidence concluding that BWS evidence is incompatible with the duress defense's use of an objective reasonable person standard. D was convicted and appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.