State v. Stetzer (2025 WI 34): Continuous Applicability of the Coercion Defence and Admissibility of Personal-History Evidence in Assessing Reasonableness

Introduction

In State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed two previously unresolved questions about the statutory coercion defence (Wis. Stat. §§ 939.45(1) & 939.46(1)):

1. Whether the defence’s elements must persist for the entire duration of an ongoing, otherwise-criminal act (here, driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration).
2. Whether a defendant’s personal history (specifically, a history of domestic abuse and prior interactions with police) can be considered when deciding if her belief that the criminal act was the “only means” of averting imminent death or great bodily harm was reasonable.

The defendant, Dr. Joan Stetzer, fled an extremely violent altercation with her husband by driving intoxicated toward what she viewed as a place of safety. Police, forewarned by the husband, intercepted and arrested her. After a bench trial the circuit court found that although coercion initially justified the flight, the defence ceased once safer alternatives were available. Both the Court of Appeals and, now, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

Delivering the majority opinion, Justice Dallet (joined in full or substantial part by five other justices) held:

• Continuity Requirement: For ongoing offences (e.g., drunk-driving, felon-in-possession, carrying concealed), the coercion defence applies only while all statutory elements remain satisfied. Once alternatives to the unlawful act become reasonably apparent, the privilege ends.
• Personal-History Relevance: A defendant’s personal experiences—including a documented history of domestic violence and past police interactions—may be relevant when assessing what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence “in the defendant’s position” would have believed. This parallels the approach long used in self-defence and defence-of-others cases.
• Application to Facts: The circuit court did not misstate the law and had sufficient evidence to conclude that, at latest when Dr. Stetzer deliberately bypassed a waiting squad car in a familiar city, it was no longer reasonable to believe that continued intoxicated driving was her sole avenue to safety. The conviction therefore stands.

Justice Ziegler concurred but criticised the majority for opining on personal-history evidence unnecessarily. Chief Justice Karofsky dissented, contending that the State failed to disprove coercion and that both lower courts wrongly discounted the realities of domestic violence.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State v. Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d 199 (1996) & State v. Nollie, 2002 WI 4 – Established that self-defence lasts only so long as force, or possession of a weapon, is reasonably necessary. The Court analogised this “continuing necessity” principle to coercion.
• State v. Jones, 147 Wis. 2d 806 (1989) – Emphasised viewing imminence and reasonableness from the defendant’s standpoint. Cited as precedent supporting personal-history relevance.
• Amundson, 69 Wis. 2d 554 (1975) – Earlier analytical link between coercion and self-defence; reaffirmed objective-reasonableness benchmark.
• Out-of-state and federal duress/necessity cases: Greenwood v. State (Alaska), United States v. Sawyer, United States v. Butler, etc. – Provide persuasive authority that an ongoing criminal act must cease when the coercive force dissipates.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Analysis: The phrase “when the actor’s conduct occurs under circumstances of coercion” (§ 939.45(1)) signals a contemporaneous requirement. Because § 939.46(1) defines those circumstances, all three elements—threat, reasonable belief of sole means, causation—must exist at every point in time during the conduct.
2. Contextual Harmony: Read consistently with self-defence statutes (§ 939.48), which Wisconsin case-law construes as temporary privileges tied to necessity.
3. Policy Concerns: Allowing a continuing offence to remain privileged indefinitely would “dramatically expand the scope of the defence,” risking public safety (e.g., hours-long drunk-driving escapes).
4. Objective Standard Informed by Perspective: The Court balanced two ideas—objectivity (what an ordinary prudent person would believe) and perspective (placed in defendant’s shoes, with her history). Personal history can inform the lens without turning the test into a purely subjective one.
5. Application to Record:
   • Undisputed that coercion existed initially.
   • Circuit court found that upon passing a clearly marked police cruiser and knowing nearby public locations, “other means of safety” existed; therefore the belief in necessity became unreasonable.
   • Standard of review: high deference under Poellinger; evidence not “so lacking in probative value” as to compel reversal.

C. Impact of the Judgment

• Clarifies Wisconsin Law: For the first time the Court expressly states that coercion must persist for the entire duration of continuous crimes. Trial lawyers now have a clear framework for instructing juries, presenting evidence, and crafting plea negotiations.
• Personal-History Evidence: Opens door for specialised testimony (e.g., battered-spouse syndrome, human-trafficking trauma) to contextualise reasonableness. Trial courts must nonetheless instruct on the objective aspect to guard against purely subjective standards.
• Domestic-Violence Litigation: Provides both opportunities (greater evidentiary relevance) and hurdles (ongoing-act limitation). Defence counsel must demonstrate not only initial coercion but continuing absence of safe alternatives.
• Traffic & Intoxication Offences: Future defendants who flee danger while impaired may raise coercion, but must show why they could not lawfully disengage (e.g., pull over, call 911) once imminence abated.
• Law-Enforcement Practices: Encourages police awareness that victims may avoid officers due to prior negative experiences—relevance at trial now confirmed.
• Potential Legislative Response: Legislature could, if so inclined, codify special rules for domestic-violence-escape scenarios, similar to some “safe-house” or “shelter defence” proposals in other jurisdictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Coercion vs. Duress vs. Necessity

All three excuse otherwise-criminal conduct compelled by threats or circumstances. Wisconsin’s “coercion” merges elements of duress (human threat) and necessity (pressure of circumstances) but is framed around a threat by a person, not natural forces.

“Ongoing” or “Continuing” Crime

An offence whose actus reus persists over time—e.g., driving while intoxicated lasts from engine-start to stop; unlawful firearm possession lasts throughout possession.

Objective Reasonableness “from the Defendant’s Standpoint”

The fact-finder asks: “If I were an ordinary prudent person with the defendant’s knowledge, experiences, and in those exact circumstances, would I have believed X?” This ensures empathy with context without collapsing into subjectivity.

Burden of Production vs. Burden of Persuasion

Defendant must first produce “some evidence” for the defence. Once satisfied, prosecution must disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt—a very high hurdle.

Conclusion

State v. Stetzer sets two important guideposts for Wisconsin criminal jurisprudence:

1. When a crime is continuous, the coercion defence does not “freeze” at the start; it ebbs the moment a reasonable, safer alternative emerges.
2. Courts must consider relevant personal-history evidence—especially prior abuse—when gauging whether a defendant’s belief in the necessity of unlawful action was reasonable.

By reconciling public-safety concerns with the lived realities of coercion victims, the decision offers a clearer analytic path for future litigants while signalling that context matters. Defence counsel will need to marshal robust evidence of continuing coercion; prosecutors must be prepared to address nuanced trauma-based testimony. Trial judges, armed with this precedent, should craft jury instructions that accurately reflect both the continuity requirement and the balanced objective-reasonableness test.

In sum, Stetzer advances Wisconsin law by harmonising its coercion statute with parallel doctrines and modern understandings of domestic-violence dynamics, while maintaining firm limits on the scope of criminal defences.