State v. Richter
Arizona Supreme Court
424 P.3d 402 (2018)

- Written by Caitlinn Raimo, JD
Facts
Two teenage sisters escaped from their bedroom window and fled to their neighbor’s house, explaining that their stepfather had threatened them with a knife. The girls appeared disheveled and unclean. When the police arrived at the girls’ home, they found the girls’ mother and stepfather, Sophia Richter (defendant) and Fernando Richter, and located their other sister locked inside a bedroom. The three sisters detailed horrific living conditions—they were confined to their rooms and monitored via video camera, had to ask permission to use the bathroom and were not always let out in time, were hit with various objects, were not properly fed, and rarely brushed their teeth or bathed. Sophia was charged with separate counts of kidnapping and child abuse for each of the three daughters, alleged to have occurred between September and November of 2013. Prior to trial, Sophia informed the court that she intended to raise a duress defense based on Fernando’s history of abusing her, which would be supported by the testimony of a psychologist. According to Sophia, Fernando’s physical and mental abuse was ongoing and included monitoring of her whereabouts and significant physical abuse. Sophia said she feared that if she did not participate in the abuse of their children, she or the children were under an immediate threat of physical harm. The trial court ruled that Sophia had failed to prove sufficient evidence in support of duress. During trial, the court granted the motion of the state (plaintiff) to prevent Sophia from presenting evidence that Fernando abused her and again precluded the duress defense, finding no immediacy to the threats she faced given the three-month timespan of the abuse of the children. Sophia was convicted. Sophia appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by preventing her from presenting the evidence and pursuing the duress defense. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Sophia’s and the psychologist’s testimonies were admissible to demonstrate duress. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bales, C.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.