## Facts

- Deidre Hunt moved to Daytona Beach in 1989, became involved with a pool-hall manager, and soon began an affair with the hall’s owner, Konstantinos Fotopoulos, who was engaged in various criminal activities. ()  
- Fotopoulos believed that former employee Kevin Ramsey was blackmailing him. ()  
- Fotopoulos, Hunt, and Ramsey went to an old shooting range in the woods, where Fotopoulos tied Ramsey to a tree. ()  
- Fotopoulos handed Hunt a .22 pistol, pointed an AK‑47 at Hunt’s head, and ordered her to shoot Ramsey. ()  
- Hunt shot Ramsey multiple times, killing him; she later asserted she did so only because she feared Fotopoulos would kill her if she refused. ()  
- Hunt was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder (among other offenses) and received life sentences. ()  
- At trial, Hunt requested jury instructions on necessity and on a theory that her premeditation could be negated or mitigated by a dominating passion caused by Fotopoulos’s coercion and abuse; the trial court refused to give those instructions. ()  
- Hunt appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her requested jury instructions and by effectively preventing the jury from considering her theory of defense. ()  

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the necessity defense where Hunt killed Ramsey while Fotopoulos held a gun to her head. ()  
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give Hunt’s requested jury instruction that would have allowed the jury to consider whether her premeditation was negated or affected by a dominating passion resulting from Fotopoulos’s coercion and abuse. ()  

## Decision

- The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Hunt’s convictions and sentences. ()  
- The court held that the trial court properly refused Hunt’s requested necessity instruction because the defense of necessity was inapplicable under the facts and, in substance, her claim sounded in duress. ()  
- The court further held that the trial court did not err in refusing Hunt’s requested instruction regarding premeditation influenced by a dominating passion, concluding that existing standard instructions adequately covered the law and that Hunt was not entitled to have her particular theory singled out. ()  

## Legal Principles

- Necessity and duress are distinct defenses:  
  - Necessity involves pressure from physical or natural forces beyond the actor’s control.  
  - Duress involves threats or coercion exerted by another person. ()  
- Under Florida law, consistent with common-law tradition and prior precedent, duress is not a defense to intentional homicide, including first- or second-degree murder. ()  
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a theory of defense only if it is a correct statement of the law and supported by the evidence; courts may refuse non-standard or duplicative instructions where standard instructions adequately cover the subject. ()  
- Jury instructions should not mischaracterize a duress claim as necessity where doing so would effectively recognize a defense (duress to homicide) that Florida law does not permit. ()  

## Conclusion

The court of appeal concluded that Hunt, who killed under threat of death from her abusive co‑conspirator, could not invoke necessity where her claim was substantively one of duress, a defense unavailable to a homicide charge. It also held that the trial court’s refusal to give her specially tailored instructions on necessity and premeditation was proper because the requested instructions misstated or extended existing law and the standard instructions sufficiently informed the jury of the applicable legal principles.


Hunt v. State, 753 So. 2d 609 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)