550 S.W.3d 117
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- On March 29, 2014, Kendrick and Steven Williams had an altercation inside Kendrick's residence; Williams pushed Kendrick multiple times and Kendrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his closet.
- Williams and responding Officer Hagemeyer testified Kendrick pointed the gun at Williams; Kendrick testified he never pointed it and had removed the magazine.
- Kendrick was charged with unlawful use of a weapon for exhibiting a pistol in an angry or threatening manner and convicted by a jury.
- Kendrick did not request a self-defense instruction at trial nor did his counsel argue self-defense in closing.
- On appeal Kendrick argued plain error: the court should have instructed the jury sua sponte on statutory self-defense because there was substantial evidence to inject that issue.
- The trial court sentenced Kendrick to four years; the appellate court considered whether substantial evidence supported a deadly-force self-defense instruction under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031 (as in effect March 29, 2014).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kendrick) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court committed plain error by failing to give a self-defense instruction sua sponte | Substantial evidence (Kendrick's testimony that Williams pushed him, that he removed the magazine, and that he acted to defend himself) injected self-defense and required an instruction even if unrequested | No substantial evidence supported deadly-force self-defense; the defendant bears the burden to inject self-defense and statutory requirements for deadly force were not met | Affirmed: no plain error because no substantial evidence supported deadly-force self-defense instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529 (Mo. banc 2018) (statutory framework governs when self-defense must be submitted)
- State v. Isbell, 524 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (discusses defendant's burden to inject self-defense and statutory changes)
- State v. Westfall, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (court must submit self-defense instruction when substantial evidence supports it)
- State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849 (Mo. banc 2015) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to defendant for self-defense inquiry)
- State v. Cummings, 514 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (unlawful exhibition of a weapon can constitute deadly force)
- State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. banc 1992) (deadly-force characterization of weapon exhibition)
- Dorsey v. State, 113 S.W.3d 311 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (introducing a deadly weapon into a simple battery escalates the level of force and cannot be justified by deadly force rules)