State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529

Background

Defendant Jeffrey Bruner confronted his estranged wife and her date, Derek Moore, outside a movie theater after seeing a Facebook "Date Night" photo; he then shot Moore multiple times, killing him.
Bruner had retrieved two loaded guns before going to the theater; witnesses saw Moore threaten and swear at Bruner but did not see Moore strike or display a weapon; Moore was larger and stood on higher ground.
Bruner testified he entered a dissociative/acute stress state after Moore threatened him, perceived a vague arm motion, and then fired; he did not testify he feared death or serious injury or that Moore had a weapon.
Physical evidence showed six gunshot hits (including shots in the back) and additional shots fired while Moore was down; witnesses observed Bruner kick Moore after he fell.
The defense argued Bruner lacked deliberation due to acute stress disorder (seeking to negate first-degree murder) and also requested a self-defense instruction; the trial court denied the self-defense instruction and the jury convicted Bruner of first-degree murder and armed criminal action.
On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit a self-defense instruction under statutory self-defense standards and the doctrine requiring submission when substantial evidence injects the issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a self-defense instruction	The State: insufficient evidence that Bruner reasonably believed deadly force was necessary; no weapon displayed, threats/words alone insufficient	Bruner: evidence (threats, backing him to the median, arm movement, size disparity) injected self-defense; court must view evidence in light most favorable to defendant	Affirmed: no error; Bruner failed to inject substantial evidence that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary
Proper standard to decide injection of self-defense	The State: apply §563.031 elements and require substantial evidence of reasonable belief of imminent unlawful force and necessity of deadly force	Bruner: courts must draw all reasonable inferences and disregard contrary evidence; if a jury could reasonably doubt the State’s proof, instruction should be given	Court applied statutory test (§563.031) and precedent requiring "substantial evidence"; rejected dissent's broader inference rule
Whether evidence of dissociation/acute stress supports self-defense submission	The State: inconsistency — accident/unintentional killing defense undermines intentional, justified killing theory of self-defense	Bruner: his mental state explained conduct but does not preclude jury finding self-defense if other evidence supports it	Court: dissociation theory is inconsistent with self-defense; presented evidence did not otherwise supply necessary reasonable belief of imminent deadly force
Role of eyewitness/physical evidence (no weapon, shots to back, post-shooting conduct)	The State: such evidence undercuts claim of imminent deadly threat and shows escalation	Bruner: threat language and arm motion were sufficient for a jury to infer reasonable belief of imminent deadly force	Held for State: absence of weapon display, shots in the back, and post-shooting conduct show insufficient support for deadly-force belief; no submissible self-defense claim

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849 (Mo. banc 2015) (self-defense injectible only when substantial evidence shows defendant reasonably believed deadly force was necessary)
State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (instruction must be given when substantial evidence supports self-defense, even if inconsistent with defendant testimony)
State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2003) (definition of "substantial evidence" and when inconsistent evidence still permits submission)
State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390 (Mo. banc 2014) (standard of review for jury instructions; discussion of burdens and lesser-included offenses)
Dorsey v. State, 113 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. App. 2003) (holding that escalation of force by defendant and lack of weapon/threat of serious injury do not inject self-defense)