State v. Amschler, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 600

Aaron Amschler fired a rifle into the ground during a confrontation at his father Gary’s house after Clinton Chandler arrived, made repeated threats (to kill, burn property, harm family), and argued about payment.
Chandler had a recent violent history with Aaron (ran over Aaron’s leg with a truck and later punched him), and a reputation and prior convictions for violence.
Witness testimony conflicted on distance (75–250 feet); Chandler was on the Amschlers’ property when the shot was fired and did not display a weapon.
Police found Aaron intoxicated (BAC .107); he admitted firing the gun and said he did so out of fear and for defense.
Trial court refused Aaron’s requested self-defense instruction; jury convicted him of unlawful use of a weapon (discharging a firearm while intoxicated).
On appeal the Missouri Court of Appeals (lead opinion) held the trial court erred by not giving the self-defense instruction and reversed and remanded for a new trial; a separate dissent would have affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Amschler's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense jury instruction	No substantial evidence of an imminent threat or use of unlawful force; Chandler was distant, unarmed, and made only threats/words	Substantial evidence (threats, prior violent acts, reputation, possible gas can/truck as weapon, refusal to leave) supported a reasonable belief of imminent danger	Reversed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, substantial evidence put self-defense in issue and the jury should have been instructed
Whether defendant forfeited review because his proffered instruction misstated law	Instruction form was defective; failure to correct means claim not preserved	Even if form was defective, the court must give a self-defense instruction when substantial evidence injects the issue	Preserved: court must instruct on self-defense when substantial evidence exists even if proposed instruction is imperfect (Westfall rule)
Evidentiary issue: exclusion of defendant’s 911 statements offered to support self-defense	Statements excluded at trial; State does not contest	Amschler argued the 911 statements corroborated his fear/self-defense	Left to trial court on remand to re-evaluate admissibility in light of self-defense being at issue

State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (trial court must instruct on self-defense when substantial evidence injects the issue even if defendant's proffer is imperfect)
State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. banc 2014) (de novo review of refusal to give requested jury instruction)
State v. Weems, 840 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1992) (failure to instruct on self-defense when required is reversible error)
State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849 (Mo. banc 2015) (definition of reasonable belief for self-defense jury instruction)
State v. Waller, 816 S.W.2d 212 (Mo. banc 1991) (prior violent acts by victim are relevant to reasonableness of defendant’s fear)
State v. Gonzales, 153 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. banc 2005) (victim’s violent reputation is relevant to reasonableness of defendant’s fear)
State v. Derenzy, 89 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. banc 2002) (preservation rules for instructional error)