State v. Mangum
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 13
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Mangum was convicted of one count of first-degree domestic assault, one count of first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action for an altercation with Amanda and Melissa on Nov. 7, 2008; Amanda was struck in the shoulder by a gunshot.
- The State charged first-degree assault for shooting toward Melissa; Mangum argued the shooting toward Melissa did not prove intent to seriously injure her.
- Mangum contends the self-defense instructions should have hypothesized multiple assailants, allowing consideration of both sisters’ actions in evaluating necessity of force.
- The State’s evidence, viewed in Mangum’s favor for sufficiency, showed proximity to Melissa and prior choking, supporting an inference of intent to injure Melissa.
- The trial court gave self-defense instructions limited to one assailant; the court held the instructions were reversible plain error for failing to hypothesize multiple assailants and remanded for new trial.
- The opinion reverses Mangum’s convictions and remands for a new trial with proper, possibly multi-assailant self-defense instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree assault | State proves intent to seriously injure Melissa | Mangum lacked intent to injure Melissa | sufficient evidence supports conviction for first-degree assault |
| Whether self-defense instructions should hypothesize multiple assailants | Self-defense against multiple assailants should be allowed | Instructions should reflect acts of both sisters | plain error; reversal and remand for new trial with modified instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Bateman v. State, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for sufficiency review; juror could be convinced beyond reasonable doubt)
- Bolden v. State, 371 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. banc 2012) (waiver of plain-error review for trial-instructed errors; notes on multiple-assailant self-defense)
- Beck v. State, 167 S.W.3d 767 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (multi-assailant self-defense instruction error; plain error if Instruction misdirects jury)
- Goodine v. State, 196 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (discusses multi-assailant self-defense instructions; distinction with total-evidence approach)
- Lerma v. State, 807 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.App. 1991) (multi-assailant self-defense allowed when danger from more than one assailant)
- Frank v. State, 688 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985) (recognizes multi-assailant self-defense instruction in yard encounter)
- Duckett v. State, 966 P.2d 941 (Wyo.1998) (defense to multiple assailants; defense of others theory)
- Westfall v. State, 75 S.W.3d 278 (Mo. banc 2002) (self-defense instruction required when supported by substantial evidence)
- Weems v. State, 840 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1992) (self-defense instructions; substantial-evidence standard)
- Doolittle v. State, 896 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. banc 1995) (instructional error; plain error analysis)
- Perry v. State, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2009) (circumstantial evidence and inferences for intent)
- Manley v. State, 223 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (circumstantial evidence for intent; natural and probable consequences rule)
- O’Brien v. State, 857 S.W.2d 212 (Mo. banc 1993) (intent inferred from act itself; natural consequences)