Bolden v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1399
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- April 21, 2007: Randy (Movant) and his sister Emily went to Fannie Powell’s home; Emily stabbed Fannie multiple times; Movant was charged as an aider/participant in first‑degree assault and armed criminal action.
- Defense theory: Fannie, Tiffany, and an unidentified man were initial aggressors; Emily acted in defense of Randy. Prosecution argued Movant and Emily were initial aggressors.
- At trial the parties jointly submitted a defense‑of‑another instruction (Instruction No. 14) modeled on MAI‑CR language but omitting explicit "multiple assailants" explanatory language; the court also submitted Instruction No. 17 (accessory liability) without a cross‑reference to the defense instruction.
- Jury convicted Randy and Emily of first‑degree assault and armed criminal action (related to Fannie); Randy’s direct appeal did not challenge the instructions; Emily later challenged Instruction No. 14 and the Missouri Supreme Court held the instruction was erroneous but declined plain‑error relief because Emily proffered it.
- Randy filed a Rule 29.15 post‑conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance because defense counsel proffered the defective instruction(s); at an evidentiary hearing counsel conceded the omission and said it did not change his closing argument; the motion court denied relief for lack of prejudice.
- This appeal contests only whether the motion court clearly erred in denying ineffective assistance relief based on the omitted "multiple assailants" language and the missing cross‑reference in Instruction No. 17.
Issues
| Issue | Randy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for proffering Instruction No. 14 that omitted "multiple assailants" language | Omission prevented jury from considering Tiffany and the unidentified man when assessing whether Emily reasonably believed deadly force was needed to defend Randy; but for the error, outcome likely different | Although instruction lacked that phrase, its "in the same situation" definition of "reasonably believe" allowed consideration of others; Randy failed to show prejudice | Denied — no clear error: instruction did not mislead jury and Randy failed to prove a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether omission of a cross‑reference in Instruction No. 17 prejudiced Randy by preventing acquittal if jury found Emily acted in defense of Randy | Missing cross‑reference meant jury could not apply Instruction 14 to Randy’s culpability | Jury rejected Emily’s self‑defense; illogical that it would accept defense for Emily but convict Randy — no prejudice | Denied — motion court’s conclusion that cross‑reference omission would not have changed verdict not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (constitutional ineffective assistance standard) (prejudice requires reasonable probability outcome would differ)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. 2002) (post‑conviction relief & relation to instructional error; prejudice/egregiousness standards)
- State v. Emily Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. 2012) (joint submission of defective instruction; defendant‑proffered error limits plain‑error review)
- State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. 2002) (failure to submit self‑defense instruction can be plain error)
- State v. Goodine, 196 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (instructional language permitting consideration of the defendant’s "situation" can encompass multiple assailants)
- State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (plain‑error reversal where defendant‑proffered instruction excused State’s burden by limiting jury to victim’s acts)
- State v. Mangum, 390 S.W.3d 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (plain‑error relief for defective self‑defense instruction when record shows no defendant‑proffer and prosecutor argued restrictive interpretation)