State ex rel. Kuntz v. Thirteenth Jud. Dist.

Decision Date27 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 99-055.,99-055.
Citation995 P.2d 951,298 Mont. 146,2000 MT 22
PartiesSTATE of Montana, ex rel. Bonnie KUNTZ Relator v. MONTANA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, Yellowstone County, The Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Presiding, Respondent
CourtMontana Supreme Court

Vernon E. Woodward, Lance G. Lundvall, Hendrickson, Everson, Noenning & Woodward, Billings, Montana (Woodward argued), For Relator.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Montana Attorney General, Patricia J. Jordan, Assistant Montana Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney, Billings, Montana (Jordan argued), For Respondent.

John P. Connor, Jr., Helena, Montana; Tom Scott, Dillon, Montana (Montana County Attorneys Association); Daniel P. Buckley, Berg, Lilly, Antral & Tollefsen, Bozeman, Montana (Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), For Amici Curiae.

Justice JAMES C. NELSONdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 This is an original proceeding in this Court involving an application for a writ of supervisory control.On January 8, 1999, the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, issued an Order denying Bonnie Kuntz's motion to dismiss or strike an amended information.The amended information alleged, under one charge, that Kuntz negligently caused the death of Warren Becker by stabbing and then failing to call for medical assistance.Kuntz contended that her affirmative defense of justifiable use of force nullified any conceivable duty she had to render aid to Becker following the stabbing, and therefore the portion of the information pertaining to her failure to summon medical aid should be amended or stricken.In denying Kuntz's motion, the District Court stated that because Kuntz may have had such a duty, both she and the State would be permitted to argue whether her "actions after the stabbing tend to refute her claim of justification."Kuntz sought a writ of supervisory control and the State concurred.In an order dated March 23, 1999, this Court accepted original jurisdiction at the request of both parties.This Court concluded that the criteria set forth in Rule 17, M.R.App.P. and Plumb v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court(1996), 279 Mont. 363, 927 P.2d 1011,were satisfied and that legal questions raised were ones of first impression.

¶ 2 The following issues were identified by our order, and have been briefed and orally argued by both parties:

1.Does one who justifiably uses deadly force in defense of her person nevertheless have a legal duty to summon aid for the mortally wounded attacker?
2.If a person who justifiably uses deadly force fails to summon aid for her attacker, is she criminally culpable for that failure?
3.Should the prosecution be permitted to argue that the defendant's actions following the use of deadly force may be considered by the fact-finder in making its decision as to the validity of the justifiable use of force defense?
4.Should the prosecution be permitted to argue that even if the defendant acted with justifiable use of force, her delay in seeking medical aid for the mortally wounded attacker was a factor in causing his death?
5.May the defendant's actions following an unjustified use of deadly force be alleged as facts supporting charging the offense of negligent homicide?
Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 3 According to the amended information and supporting affidavit, Yellowstone County Sheriff's deputies were dispatched on April 19,1998, to the home of Bonnie Kuntz and Warren Becker to investigate a reported stabbing.When the deputies arrived at the trailer house, Becker was dead from a single stab wound to the chest.

¶ 4 Kuntz, who was waiting for medical and law enforcement personnel to arrive, told the deputies that she and Becker had argued the morning of April 18, 1998.At some point during the day, both parties left the trailer home.After Kuntz returned that evening, at or before midnight, a physical altercation ensued.

¶ 5 The alleged facts indicate that Kuntz and Becker, who had never married but had lived together for approximately six years, were in the process of ending what is described as a stormy relationship.When Kuntz arrived at the mobile home that night, she discovered that many of her personal belongings had been destroyed, the interior of the home "trashed," and the phone ripped from the wall.Kuntz told the deputies that she then went into the kitchen.There, allegedly, Becker physically attacked her, and at one point grabbed her by the hair, shook her, and slammed her into the stove.

¶ 6 Kuntz told the deputies that she could not clearly remember what happened, only that she had pushed Becker away and had then gone outside by the kitchen door to "cool off."When she thought that the fight was over, and that it was safe to go back inside, she returned to the kitchen.She discovered a trail of blood leading from the kitchen through the living room and out onto the front porch where she found Becker collapsed face-down on the porch.She alleges that she rolled him over.Becker was unresponsive.

¶ 7 Kuntz then alleges that she found Becker's car keys in one of his pockets, got in his vehicle, drove to a friend's house several miles away, and called her mother.Kuntz does not allege that she personally contacted medical or law enforcement personnel; rather, authorities were apparently summoned by Kuntz's sister-in-law, who lived next door to Kuntz's mother, sometime within an hour after the stabbing.Kuntz did return, however, to the trailer home where she waited for the deputies and medics to arrive.

¶ 8 On June 23, 1998, Bonnie Kuntz was charged with negligent homicide for causing the death of Warren Becker by stabbing him once in the chest.Although she admitted stabbing Becker and causing his death, Kuntz entered a plea of not guilty based on the defense of justifiable use of force.

¶ 9 On November 6, 1998, shortly before the scheduled trial date, the State filed an amended information charging the same offense but alleging that Kuntz caused the death of Becker by stabbing him once in the chest with a knife and by failing to call for medical assistance.Kuntz again entered a plea of not guilty.On December 18, 1998, Kuntz filed a motion to dismiss the amended information or in the alternative to strike the allegation that the failure to seek medical assistance constituted negligent homicide.

¶ 10 Following a hearing and briefing, the District Court issued an Order and Memorandum on January 8, 1999, denying Bonnie Kuntz's motion to dismiss the amended information.

¶ 11 Kuntz sought a writ of supervisory control and the State concurred.In an order dated March 23, 1999, this Court accepted original jurisdiction at the request of both parties.

Standard of Review

¶ 12 A district court's denial of a motion to amend or strike a criminal information involves legal questions which we review de novo, determining only whether the court correctly interpreted the law.SeeState v. Bowles(1997), 284 Mont. 490, 492, 947 P.2d 52, 53.

Discussion

¶ 13 Subject to this writ of supervisory control, we are asked to resolve several related, narrow issues that previously have not been addressed by this Court.Because the issues here have far-reaching implications with respect to the affirmative defense of justifiable use of force in Montana, as well as the duty to render medical aid, we find it necessary to first establish a workable framework of legal principles and rules under the laws of Montana and other jurisdictions before proceeding.

¶ 14 For criminal liability to be based upon a failure to act, there must be a duty imposed by the law to act, and the person must be physically capable of performing the act.See§ 45-2-202, MCA.As a starting point in our analysis, the parties here have identified what is often referred to as "the American bystander rule."This rule imposes no legal duty on a person to rescue or summon aid for another person who is at risk or in danger, even though society recognizes that a moral obligation might exist.This is true even "when that aid can be rendered without danger or inconvenience to" the potential rescuer.Pope v. State(1979), 284 Md. 309, 396 A.2d 1054, 1064(quotingWayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law, at 183(1972)).Thus, an Olympic swimmer may be deemed by the community as a shameful coward, or worse, for not rescuing a drowning child in the neighbor's pool, but she is not a criminal.SeeLaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law§ 3.3(a)(1986).

¶ 15 But this rule if far from absolute.Professors LaFave and Scott have identified seven common-law exceptions to the American bystander rule: 1) a duty based on a personal relationship, such as parent-child or husband-wife; 2) a duty based on statute; 3) a duty based on contract; 4) a duty based upon voluntary assumption of care; 5) a duty based on creation of the peril; 6) a duty to control the conduct of others; and 7) a duty based on being a landowner.SeeLaFave & Scott, § 3.3, at 283-289.A breach of one of these legal duties by failing to take action, therefore, may give rise to criminal liability.Our review of the issues presented here can accordingly be narrowed to two of the foregoing exceptions as briefed by the parties and identified by the District Court: 1) a duty based on a personal relationship, and 2) a duty based on creation of the peril.

¶ 16 One of the lead authorities on the personal relationship duty arose in Montana.In the widely-cited case of State v. Mally(1961), 139 Mont. 599, 366 P.2d 868, this Court held that under certain circumstances a husband has a duty to summon medical aid for his wife and breach of that duty could render him criminally liable.The facts of the case described how Kay Mally, who was suffering from terminal kidney and liver diseases, fell and fractured both her arms on a Tuesday evening.Her...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
14 cases
  • Limone v. U.S., Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 26 Julio 2007
    ...situation, whether that situation was created intentionally or negligently. Id. (citing State ex rel. Kuntz v. Montana Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 298 Mont. 146, 995 P.2d 951, 957 (2000)) (A person may be criminally liable when he "places another in a position of danger, and then fails......
  • State v. Christensen
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 16 Septiembre 2020
    ...conduct is not a cause-in-fact of the event if the event would have occurred without it. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Mont. Thirteenth Jud. Dist. Court , 2000 MT 22, ¶ 37, 298 Mont. 146, 995 P.2d 951. Clearly, the risk created by Christensen's conduct under the circumstances—providing large quant......
  • State v. Bowen
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 18 Agosto 2015
    ...of this omission, such an omission may be sufficient to support criminal liability.” State ex rel. Kuntz v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2000 MT 22, ¶ 20, 298 Mont. 146, 995 P.2d 951 (citation omitted). Cause-in-fact is required for a conviction of negligent homicide. See State v.......
  • State v. Hocter
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 2011
    ...by the law to act, and the person must be physically capable of performing the act.” State ex rel. Kuntz v. Montana Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2000 MT 22, ¶ 14, 298 Mont. 146, 995 P.2d 951. In the absence of “a duty that the law imposes,” a person cannot be criminally liable for failu......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • "am I My Brother's Keeper?": Reforming Criminal Hazing Laws Based on Assumption of Care
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 63-4, 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...20, 23 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997) (citing Oliver, 258 Cal. Rptr. at 143). 293. See State ex rel. Kuntz v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2000 MT 22, ¶¶ 29-30, 298 Mont 146, 995 P.2d 951 (holding that one who justifiably uses force in self-defense nevertheless has a legal duty to summon a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT