## Facts

- Bonnie Kuntz and Warren Becker lived together for roughly six years in a volatile relationship.
- Kuntz returned home one evening to find the home damaged and the telephone disabled; she alleged Becker attacked her in the kitchen.
- Becker suffered a stab wound and was later found unresponsive on the front porch; he died from the injury.
- Kuntz did not immediately call emergency services; she drove to a friend’s house, contacted her mother, and authorities were notified by a third party; Kuntz later returned to await police and medical personnel.
- The State charged Kuntz with negligent homicide; she pleaded not guilty and asserted justifiable use of force (self-defense).
- The State filed an amended information alleging negligent homicide based on both (1) stabbing Becker and (2) failing to summon medical assistance.
- The district court denied Kuntz’s motion to dismiss or strike the “failure to summon aid” theory, reasoning the parties could litigate duty and the relevance of post-stabbing conduct to the self-defense claim.
- Kuntz petitioned for supervisory control; the Montana Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction to address questions of first impression and clarify the governing law.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who justifiably uses deadly force in self-defense can nevertheless have a legal duty to summon medical aid for the wounded aggressor.
2. Whether failure to summon aid after a justified use of deadly force can support criminal liability for negligent homicide.
3. Whether the prosecution may argue that the defendant’s post-incident conduct may be considered in evaluating the credibility and validity of a self-defense claim.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court held that a person who justifiably uses deadly force may, depending on the circumstances, have a legal duty to obtain or summon aid for the wounded aggressor.
- The Court held the duty is not absolute and may be suspended while the actor reasonably believes she remains in danger, reviving when she is safe and able to seek help.
- The Court held that an omission (failure to summon aid) may be part of a negligent-homicide theory if the State proves a breached legal duty and cause-in-fact causation of death.
- The Court held the prosecution may argue that post-incident conduct is relevant for the fact-finder in assessing the credibility and validity of a justifiable-use-of-force defense.
- The Court declined to strike the amended information as a matter of law and allowed the prosecution to proceed subject to the Court’s clarified framework on duty, suspension, and causation.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability based on an omission generally requires a legally recognized duty to act.
- A legal duty may arise from a special relationship or from the defendant’s creation of the peril, even if the initial use of force is found justified.
- Self-defense does not categorically eliminate post-incident duties; any duty to seek aid is suspended during a reasonable, continuing fear of danger and may revive once the actor is safe and capable of acting.
- Negligent-homicide liability predicated on failure to summon medical help requires proof that the omission was a cause-in-fact of death, including evidence that timely aid could have prevented death.
- A defendant’s conduct after using force may be considered by the fact-finder as relevant to state of mind and credibility regarding the claimed necessity for self-defense.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that justified self-defense may coexist with a later duty to summon aid for a wounded aggressor, that failure to do so can support negligent-homicide liability if a legal duty and cause-in-fact causation are proven, and that post-incident conduct may be argued as relevant to evaluating a self-defense claim; accordingly, the amended negligent-homicide charge could proceed under these limits.


State ex rel. Kuntz v. Thirteenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 995 P.2d 951 (Mont. 2000)