State v. Metcalf
Ohio Court of Appeals
396 N.E.2d 786 (1977)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Thomas Berry, an undercover narcotics agent, confronted Bart Luff about some bad drugs that Luff had earlier sold to Berry. Berry, accompanied by Randy Imes, a six-foot-two-inch-tall and 275-pound man, took Luff for a ride in his car, where Luff was manhandled by Imes; made to believe his life was threatened, due in part to the appearance of a .375-magnum revolver; and ordered to return the $120 paid for the bad drugs or, in the alternative, to deliver good drugs. Luff was unable to secure a loan and suggested that his cousin, Metcalf (defendant), might be of assistance. The three went to Metcalf’s house, in which Metcalf, his wife, his child, a guest, and another child were present. Berry and Imes, continuing their charade, entered Metcalf’s house armed with the magnum. Luff told Metcalf that his life had been threatened by Imes and begged Metcalf for help. Being unable to procure the $120 demanded, the conversation turned to drugs as an alternative means of repayment. Metcalf then procured a pound of marijuana and gave it to Luff, who in turn gave it to Berry. Metcalf was charged with the unlawful sale, barter, exchange, gift, or offer of marijuana in violation of state statute. Metcalf admitted to giving a pound of marijuana to his cousin, Luff, but alleged that he only did so out of his fear for the safety of Luff, his family, and himself. The trial court, despite Metcalf’s objection, limited the defense of duress to the fear that Metcalf entertained on his own behalf, excluding from consideration Metcalf’s concern for the safety of his family. Metcalf was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dowd, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.