## Facts

- Undercover narcotics agent Thomas Berry confronted Bart Luff about drugs Luff had previously sold to Berry that turned out to be “bad,” and demanded either repayment of $120 or delivery of “good drugs.”
- Berry was accompanied by Randy Imes, a six-foot-two-inch, 275-pound man who physically manhandled Luff during a car ride arranged by Berry.
- During the encounter, Luff was made to believe his life was in danger; the threatening display included the appearance of Berry’s .357 magnum revolver.
- Luff tried unsuccessfully to borrow money to satisfy Berry’s demand, then suggested his cousin, Metcalf, might help.
- Berry, Imes, and Luff went to Metcalf’s home, where Metcalf, his wife, their three-year-old child, an adult guest, and another three-year-old child were present.
- Berry and Imes continued the intimidation at the home; Imes entered armed with the magnum wrapped in a jacket.
- Luff told Metcalf that Imes had threatened to kill him and begged Metcalf for help to “save his life.”
- When Metcalf and his wife said they did not have the $120, the discussion turned to drugs as an alternative method of repayment.
- Metcalf agreed to produce a pound (“brick”) of marijuana if Imes first left the house; after Imes left, Metcalf’s wife retrieved the marijuana from a vehicle, returned it to Metcalf, and the marijuana was handed over (Metcalf testified he gave it to Luff; Berry testified it was given directly to Berry).
- At trial, Luff, the guest, Metcalf, and Metcalf’s wife testified they were afraid for themselves and the children during the encounter; Imes admitted he intimidated Luff and was armed during the demand for money or drugs.
- Metcalf was charged under Ohio law with unlawfully selling, bartering, exchanging, giving away, or offering marijuana; he admitted providing the pound of marijuana but claimed he acted from fear for Luff’s safety, his family’s safety, and his own safety.
- Over Metcalf’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury that duress could be considered only as to fear Metcalf had for himself, excluding fear for his family members in the home.
- The jury convicted Metcalf, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. In a non-homicide prosecution, may the defense of duress rest on a defendant’s reasonable fear for the safety of family members or others present, and did the trial court err by limiting duress to fear for the defendant alone?
2. When the evidence (viewed most favorably to the prosecution) shows the charged conduct was the intended result of duress imposed by government agents, is the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime irrelevant to liability?

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court committed reversible error by restricting the jury’s consideration of duress to Metcalf’s personal fear and excluding evidence and consideration of his fear for his family and others present.
- The court further held, consistent with its syllabus, that while predisposition matters in ordinary entrapment analysis, it is not an issue where the prosecution’s own proof shows the criminal act charged was the intended consequence of duress applied by government agents.

## Legal Principles

- Duress is a common-law defense to non-homicide offenses when the defendant’s conduct results from threats of violence that leave the defendant unable to safely withdraw or resist.
- In non-homicide cases, duress is not confined to threats directed only at the defendant; it may be based on reasonable fear for the safety of others the defendant has reason to protect, including family members.
- A trial court must allow the jury to consider duress on the full facts supported by the record; narrowing duress to fear for the defendant alone can be prejudicial error when fear for others is part of the claimed compulsion.
- Although predisposition is a question in typical entrapment cases, predisposition is not a controlling question where, even on the state’s evidence, the acts constituting the offense were the intended result of duress exerted by government agents.
- The state may not rely on a delivery of drugs that its agents intentionally procured through threats and intimidation, then treat that coerced delivery as an ordinary, voluntary criminal transaction.

## Conclusion

State v. Metcalf reversed a marijuana-delivery conviction because the jury was not allowed to consider duress based on Metcalf’s fear for his family and others present in his home, and because the record showed that law-enforcement intimidation was used to bring about the delivery; in that setting, the defendant’s predisposition did not control when the charged act was the intended result of duress imposed by government agents.


State v. Metcalf, 396 N.E.2d 786 (1977)