State v. Crawford
Supreme Court of Kansas
253 Kan. 629 (1993)
At the time of this case, § 21-3209 of the Kansas Statutes provided that a defendant was not guilty of a crime, other than murder or voluntary manslaughter, if he acted under compulsion or a reasonable belief that he or a member of his immediate family was threatened with imminent death or serious bodily harm. The statute further provided that this defense did not apply if the defendant’s willful or reckless conduct made it likely that he would be put under compulsion or threat. Crawford (defendant) was a drug addict who owed money to Bateman for cocaine purchased on credit. Bateman asked Crawford to commit robberies in order to pay the debt, and Bateman’s girlfriend gave Crawford a gun. While the three of them were parked outside a hospital, Bateman told Crawford to rob a woman entering the parking lot. The woman fled and gave Crawford her wedding rings, after which Crawford approached Monhollon, entered Monhollon’s car at gunpoint, robbed him and drove away with Monhollon at the wheel, leaving Bateman and his girlfriend behind. Crawford then robbed Monhollon’s house and two other homes, keeping Monhollon at gunpoint, and later forced Monohollon to withdraw cash from an ATM. Finally, Crawford put Monhollon in the trunk of the car and drove to a motel where he met Bateman, who was dissatisfied with the value of the stolen goods and told Crawford to commit another robbery. Monhollon eventually escaped from the trunk and contacted the police. Crawford was arrested and charged with multiple counts of aggravated robbery, aggravated battery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping. At his trial, Crawford argued that Bateman had threatened to kill him and his son and that Bateman belonged to the Moorish Americans, a dangerous religious group. Crawford also introduced expert testimony that he suffered from drug dependency, depression, and a personality disorder that made him dependent and fearful of Bateman. The court instructed the jury on the defense of compulsion, quoting from § 21-3209 and adding that the mere threat of future injury did not constitute an imminent threat sufficient to constitute a defense. Crawford was convicted on all counts and appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Allegrucci, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 169,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.