STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JOEY LYNN PLUNKETT
487 S.W.3d 480
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 8, 2013 officers Wells and Boone responded to a 911 call at Joey Plunkett’s home; Plunkett got into his truck and drove through his yard, at times toward officers, then got stuck in mud.
- Officers broke out the truck windows; Boone punched Plunkett and, during the struggle, Plunkett threw a Mason jar later found to contain gasoline; officers tased and handcuffed him and found a lighter.
- Plunkett testified he was detoxing from opioids, feared attackers he believed were confederates of a man he’d fought the prior night, thought the men were not police until he heard an order to “tase,” and asserted he acted to defend himself or escape.
- Jury convicted Plunkett of three counts of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and one count of resisting arrest; sentenced to concurrent terms for assaults and consecutive term for resisting arrest.
- At trial the parties jointly submitted a set of jury instructions but Plunkett requested one self-defense instruction (MAI-CR3d 306.22A) limited to Count 3; the court refused it and gave the agreed instructions.
- On appeal Plunkett argued (1) the court erred in refusing his tendered self-defense instruction for Count 3, and (2–4) the court plainly erred by failing sua sponte to instruct self-defense on Counts 1–3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in refusing Plunkett’s tendered MAI-CR3d 306.22A instruction for Count 3 | State: instruction inapplicable because defendant did not know he was facing law enforcement when he threw gasoline and did not first indicate surrender | Plunkett: his testimony showed he acted to defend himself from excessive force and later submitted after being tased; instruction was warranted | Court: Affirmed refusal — instruction inapplicable because (1) MAI-CR3d 306.22A requires defendant knew victim was an officer when using force, and (2) defendant did not clearly indicate surrender before using force |
| Whether trial court plainly erred by failing sua sponte to give self-defense instruction (Counts 1–3) | State: no plain error because parties jointly proffered instructions excluding self-defense; any omission invited by defendant’s agreement | Plunkett: Westfall and related authority require sua sponte self-defense instruction when evidence supports it; plain error review required | Court: No plain error review — defendant invited error by jointly proffering the instruction set that excluded self-defense; so appellate plain-error relief not available |
| Whether defendant’s testimony alone created substantial evidence requiring self-defense instruction | State: even if evidence existed, defendant waived/sought omission by joint instruction proposal | Plunkett: his testimony of fear and attempts to escape raised self-defense | Court: Did not reach merits for Counts 1–3 because invited error doctrine foreclosed plain-error review |
| Whether invited error precludes plain-error relief on jury instructions | State: invited error bars plain-error review where defendant proffered/accepted instruction set | Plunkett: argued per Westfall that failure to instruct is reversible even if not objected | Held: Invited error prevents use of plain-error to correct trial court’s compliance with defendant’s own requested instruction set |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (failure to instruct on a supported defense is plain error but instruction must be supported by evidence)
- State v. Bolden, 371 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. banc 2012) (invited error precludes plain-error reversal where defendant proffered an incorrect instruction)
- State v. Marshall, 302 S.W.3d 720 (Mo.App. 2010) (defendant waived self-defense instruction by offering then withdrawing it)
- State v. Howard, 615 S.W.2d 498 (Mo.App. 1981) (mutual agreement to omit self-defense instruction constitutes waiver/invited error)
- State v. Hiltibidal, 292 S.W.3d 488 (Mo.App. 2009) (trial courts must sua sponte instruct on self-defense when evidence supports it)
- State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. banc 2001) (a party cannot take advantage of self-invited error)
- State v. Beck, 167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo.App. 2005) (if a party gets what he requests, he cannot later claim the trial court erred in complying)