State v. Cummings, 514 S.W.3d 110

Karen Cummings was charged under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4) for knowingly exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner on Dec. 1, 2014; a jury convicted her of unlawful use of a weapon (class D felony).
Facts: Brenda Weigand (divorcing Danny Weigand) asked Cummings to accompany her to the Weigand farm to get hay; an altercation over truck keys ensued between Brenda and Danny.
Cummings testified she chambered a .45, fired one shot into the air after chambering failed to get Danny’s attention, and intended to scare or de-escalate the situation; a spent .45 casing was found at the scene.
Danny testified he felt threatened when Cummings pointed the gun and walked away while calling 911; deputies recovered Cummings’s handgun on arrival.
Procedural: defense moved in limine to exclude concealed-carry evidence (granted). During deliberations, jurors asked whether Cummings had a carry permit and weapons training; the court refused to answer beyond advising jurors to rely on their memories. Defense later moved for a new trial asserting juror misconduct.
The court also submitted defense-of-another (justification) instructions over Cummings’s objection; jury assessed a $100 fine, no imprisonment. Appeals court affirmed.

Issue	Cummings' Argument	State's / Court's Response	Held
Juror misconduct based on jury question about concealed-carry permit	Jury inquiry showed consideration of extraneous, material information; required new trial	No timely objection was made when the question occurred; no evidence was produced at new-trial hearing to establish misconduct; jurors presumed to follow instructions	Denied — plain-error review failed; no obvious abuse of discretion
Submission of defense-of-another instructions over objection	Court erred because defense did not inject the issue or present evidence, so instructions prejudiced defendant	Evidence (from State and defense) put defense-of-another at issue; when any evidence injects the justification, the instruction must be given and burden remains with State	Denied — instructions properly submitted; no prejudice to defendant
Verdict against the weight of the evidence	Verdict was against the weight because no substantial evidence showed Cummings exhibited the pistol in a threatening manner	Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence; weight is for jury and trial court on new-trial motion	Denied — not reviewable on appeal

State v. Cooper, 735 S.W.2d 85 (Mo. App. 1987) (failure to object at time of observed juror misconduct preserves issue only for plain-error review)
State v. Walter, 479 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. banc 2016) (plain-error standard for preserved claims)
State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901 (Mo. banc 1997) (burden to prove juror misconduct; allegations alone are insufficient)
State v. Avery, 120 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2003) (substantial evidence required to support justification instruction; court must give instruction when evidence injects the issue)
State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1992) (exhibiting a firearm in an angry or threatening manner constitutes deadly force for self-defense analysis)
State v. Williams, 828 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (once justification is raised by any evidence, court must instruct and State bears burden to disprove defense)
State v. Kasparie, 498 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (legal standard for when a justification defense has been raised by the evidence)