## Facts

- James C. Hunter traveled with Mark Walters, Lisa Dunn, and Daniel Remeta; Remeta displayed firearms, and Hunter repaired an inoperable .22 pistol.
- Hunter claimed Remeta described prior violent crimes and made threats that caused Hunter to fear for his safety and believe he could not safely leave.
- After a traffic stop by a sheriff’s vehicle, an occupant shot the undersheriff; the officer identified the shooter as matching Hunter’s appearance, while Hunter, Dunn, and Remeta testified Remeta was the shooter.
- The group later went to a grain elevator where additional gunfire occurred; two employees were taken hostage and forced into a truck.
- Remeta later shot and killed both hostages, leaving their bodies by the roadside.
- Hunter was charged with two counts of felony murder (for the hostages’ deaths) and related felonies, including aggravated kidnapping and aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer.
- Hunter asserted he participated under compulsion because Remeta was armed, had threatened him, had just shot an officer, and he reasonably believed escape was not safely available.

## Issues

1. Whether Kansas law categorically bars the defense of compulsion in a felony-murder prosecution because felony murder is classified as “murder.”
2. Whether it was reversible error to refuse a compulsion instruction where the defendant presented some evidence supporting compulsion in a felony-murder case.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court held compulsion is not categorically barred in felony-murder prosecutions.
- The statutory exclusion of compulsion in “murder or manslaughter” was construed to apply to intentional or voluntary homicide, not felony murder predicated on an underlying felony.
- Because Hunter introduced some evidence that could support compulsion, he was entitled to a jury instruction on that defense.
- The refusal to instruct on compulsion as a matter of law was reversible error.
- The felony-murder convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory bar on compulsion in “murder or manslaughter” applies to intentional or voluntary homicide and does not automatically extend to felony murder.
- Felony-murder liability is anchored in intentional participation in the underlying felony rather than a purpose to kill; this distinction matters for statutory interpretation of affirmative defenses.
- When a defendant produces some evidence supporting compulsion in a felony-murder case, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction, and factual disputes about compulsion are for the jury to decide.
- A trial court commits reversible error by refusing an otherwise supported affirmative-defense instruction based solely on an incorrect legal view that the defense is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that Kansas law permits compulsion as a defense to felony murder and that, when supported by some evidence, a compulsion instruction must be given; the felony-murder convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.


State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 740 P.2d 559 (Kan. 1987)