STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. JAMES CRAIG HOBSON
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 993
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 6, 2013, Trooper Leathers and Deputy Davis responded to a report of a suspicious, intoxicated man (Defendant Hobson) on a homeowner's doorstep.
- Officers seated Hobson in the deputy's patrol car for a medical check; paramedics cleared him but he remained intoxicated.
- Trooper Leathers attempted to get Hobson to sit back in the car for a 12-hour civil detox hold under §67.315. Hobson swore at Leathers, "stiffened up," grabbed the car door, and then struck Leathers in the face with a closed fist.
- Hobson was charged and convicted by a jury of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
- On appeal Hobson argued (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to a prosecutor misstatement in closing argument and (2) the court plainly erred in failing to give a self-defense instruction sua sponte.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether overruling objection to prosecutor's closing remark was reversible error | State: prosecutor's characterization was fair; any minor misstatement did not affect verdict | Hobson: prosecutor misstated Trooper Leathers's testimony about whether Hobson "stiffened up" before or after the trooper pushed him, implying facts not in evidence | Not reversible: no prejudice; overwhelming evidence and jury instructions cured any misstatement |
| Whether trial court plainly erred by failing to give a self-defense instruction sua sponte | State: no substantial evidence Hobson reasonably believed he faced bodily harm | Hobson: evidence supported an inference that he was defending himself from assault when trooper pushed him | No plain error: no substantial evidence that Hobson reasonably believed he faced bodily harm; self-defense instruction not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tinsley, 143 S.W.3d 722 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (limits on closing argument and prohibition on implying unproven facts)
- State v. Barton, 936 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. banc 1996) (reversal for improper argument requires reasonable probability verdict would differ)
- State v. Overton, 261 S.W.3d 654 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings and prejudice analysis)
- State v. Plunkett, 487 S.W.3d 480 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (instructional error review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to defendant; substantial-evidence requirement for self-defense instruction)
- State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. banc 2014) (jury may disbelieve evidence; discussed by appellant but distinguished by court here)