424 P.3d 402
Ariz.2018Background
- In November 2013 two young sisters escaped and reported that their stepfather, Fernando Richter, had broken into their bedroom and threatened them with a knife; police found poor living conditions and evidence of confinement and neglect of three children in the home.
- Sophia Richter (the mother) and Fernando were indicted on multiple counts of kidnapping and child abuse for acts occurring Sept–Nov 2013; Sophia sought to assert a duress (justification) defense at trial.
- Sophia proffered testimony and photographic evidence of physical and psychological abuse by Fernando and disclosed a psychologist (Dr. Perrin) as an expert; the State argued this was barred "diminished capacity" evidence under State v. Mott and that Sophia could not show threats of "immediate physical force" required by A.R.S. § 13-412(A).
- The trial court excluded Sophia’s testimony and expert evidence and denied severance, ruling Mott barred the evidence and that the alleged threats over an 86-day period were not sufficiently "immediate."
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Sophia could present a duress defense and that some of Dr. Perrin’s testimony might qualify as admissible "observation evidence."
- The Arizona Supreme Court (majority) reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) Mott did not bar duress supporting evidence because duress is a justification (not diminished-capacity) defense; (2) ongoing threats can, in some circumstances, meet § 13-412(A)’s immediacy requirement; and (3) on the limited record Dr. Perrin’s proffered testimony did not qualify as admissible observation evidence for duress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Richter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of prolonged domestic abuse may be admitted to support a duress (justification) defense | Mott bars psychological/diminished-capacity expert evidence; duress requires immediate threat and Sophia’s evidence was generalized, spanning 86 days | Duress is a justification defense; evidence of ongoing threats and abuse is relevant to whether a reasonable person in her situation was compelled to commit the crimes | Majority: Mott does not bar duress-supporting evidence; duress is a justification defense and proffered abuse evidence is admissible to raise the defense |
| Whether threats over a multi-week/month period can satisfy § 13-412(A)’s requirement of a "threat or use of immediate physical force" | The statutory immediacy requirement bars a duress instruction for threats spread over three months; Sophia’s fear was generalized | An ongoing pattern of threats may be "immediate" for duress purposes when viewed from the defendant’s circumstances; slight evidence suffices to require a jury instruction | Majority: Ongoing threats can suffice; Sophia’s proffer (injuries, abuse, control facts) met the low threshold to present duress to the jury |
| Whether Dr. Perrin’s proffered expert testimony was admissible as "observation evidence" under Clark v. Arizona to support duress | The proposed psychological testimony is Mott‑type, subjective, and inadmissible to negate mens rea or support duress | Expert evidence would explain how abuse affected Sophia and rebut mens rea/establish compulsion | Majority: On the limited record Dr. Perrin’s proffer did not fit admissible observation evidence; observation evidence likely cannot be used to support duress because it is subjective |
| Burden and scope of instruction once defendant proffers duress evidence | Trial court applied a preponderance standard and excluded evidence before trial | Once the defendant produces the slightest evidence of justification, the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt per A.R.S. § 13-205 | Majority: Trial court erred in imposing a higher burden pretrial; slight evidence suffices to require a jury instruction and shift burden to the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) (U.S. Supreme Court permitting "observation evidence" to rebut mens rea and explaining limits of Mott)
- State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536 (1997) (Arizona Supreme Court barring "diminished capacity" expert evidence to negate mens rea)
- State v. Leteve, 237 Ariz. 516 (2015) (admissibility of expert observation evidence to rebut premeditation/mens rea)
- State v. Kinslow, 165 Ariz. 503 (1990) (describing the immediacy requirement for duress as "present, imminent and impending")
- United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1984) (ongoing death threats by cartel allowed triable issue on duress)
- United States v. Chi Tong Kuok, 671 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2012) (continued threats over years can support duress where contextual factors remove reasonable alternatives)
- Esquibel v. State, 576 P.2d 1129 (N.M. 1978) (New Mexico Supreme Court holding recent threats in an ongoing pattern supported duress instruction)