*1 beyond [by greater a proof reasonable doubt the [meaning placing the burden of one weight in of the evidence our prejudi- on defendant as to is case] self-defense] because, proof that the on the shifting burden such cially erroneous find- defendant who would benefit proof, of essential element burden case, ing .. ..” denies defendant of state’s of inno presumption full effect of the Judgment and cause reversed remanded. subjects It defendant to convic cence. proved justification if he has not tion All Judges concur. his homicide—and innocence therefore a his —even create evidence guilt .... of
reasonable doubt his
“ Although . . . instruction] [the upon explicitly the defend-
does not throw self-defense, proving of
ant the burden it, be so un- the sense of and would by any juror reasonable since
derstood
finding obviously for the benefit there- of Missouri, defendant would be exonerated STATE Respondent, who also, . . by . . It erroneous conflicts with paragraph that first because Appellant. Peter Festus BRIDGES, another [referring submissions No. 48323. inno- presumption of instruction] accorded defendant is not overcome cence Missouri, Court of establishing except from guilt Division No. 2. doubt, beyond all the reasonable March on the which burden rests state. While could, lawyer patience diffi- with some contradictory
culty, harmonize this ravel
directions, expected it is not of a laymen.”
The Minnis case also answers the state’s Holt,
reliance on State v. similarly upon which was relied
by the state in the Minnis In our case. Minnis, requirement that the “by weight find greater must evidence, defendant acted expanding
self-defense” has the effect application proof “by greater
weight of the evidence” to the defense directly connect-
self-defense to which it is instruction, language
ed in the
which was not true the instruction Minnis, 286 of 486
Holt. As said 1. c. “ . . and rea- . An attentive S.W.2d: reading
sonable
leads to conclusion that proved are to be
elements of self-defense innocence, instruction, presumption No. a similar case. 1. There was *2 Gen., Danforth, Atty. C. Preston John Dean, Gen., City, Atty. Asst. Jefferson respondent. Thomas, Jr., Harold A. Carroll Strib- G. Louis, ling, Jr., defendant-appellant. St. HOUSER, Commissioner. appeal This is a of the conviction second Bridges of Peter Festus of the crime of first degree. murder in the first On the appeal judgment this Court affirmed the imprisonment. life guilt and sentence to Mo.Sup., Bridges, State v. having represented by
Defendant not been this counsel on the judgment of af- May set aside its Bosler firmance accordance with voluntary. Ac- Cir., Swenson, reinstated find the confessions 363 F.2d Court, cordingly, or- this was submitted after the docket of the cause on and on this Court or- appoint counsel November circuit court to dered the hearing dered the trial court to conduct counsel to file brief and directed ques- express finding make appeal appellant’s an this second Court. On *3 raising hearing three That conducted on filed a brief tion. was counsel has Jan- 19, uary Testimony heard and points. was evidence, that on the of all the both basis First, appellant asserts error during introduced of the trial course objection his admission overruling 5, 4 May on and 1960and at interlocu- they his that confessions on basis 1973, 19, tory hearing January the cir- law, in involuntary a matter of as were statements, cuit court that all admis- found was they appellant obtained after that were confessions, and oral and writ- sions intense, subjected repeated ten, original in evidence at the introduced police officers by multiple groups of voluntarily by given trial and made “were being while period twenty hours of over defendant, by and not were obtained aid of food held without or incommunicado force, threats, duress, means of complete suffering from and while counsel illegal or other means.” thorough was hysteria. mental This issue however, interlocutory finding, This litigated the first and decided ly not question conclusive on appellant re in an exhaustive adversely to confessions voluntary. were ultimate law. v. of the evidence and State view in- jury, proper decision was for the under [2, Bridges, supra, l.c. 216-219 349 S.W.2d Appellant’s principal point structions. Appellant’s present suggestions 3 and 4], question properly that was submit- not question. light upon the throw no new jury; ted to the that the court erred conclu we reach same reconsideration Instruction No. on the at sions arrived confessions, fol- voluntariness Ev same reasons. this connection see lows : 500, State, Mo.Sup., v. 465 S.W.2d ans 502, 2; Keynote and cited cases “The Court instructs the that 191, Tettamble, Mo.Sup., 450 S.W.2d or by oral written statement made It be taken as established [1]. defendant, even it should contain case that statements and confes prove matters guilt, his is admissible appellant involuntary sions of not were against the defendant and a matter of law. given probative such value as evi- deserves, you you
dence as believe it if Appellant’s suggests brief further find it given. was voluntarily respect findings that the court’s with regard, And in this the Court instructs appellant’s confession you by ‘voluntary’ term unmistakably the rul not clear under were means not secured Denno, 368, ings U.S. is, by striking beating 1774, 908, 12 L.Ed.2d 1 A.L.R.3d S.Ct. him, physical threats of harm to Georgia, 385 and Sims U.S. promise by any- him immunity to that at S.Ct. immunity. grant one such competent be very the case should remanded least you respect the Court instructs findings entry of clear voluntary in nature to make a confession appellant’s confession the voluntariness necessary such hearing. to show that evidentiary interlocutory is not after an spontaneous, confession or statement be meritorious. suggestion This was is made without either shows that transcript of the record you clarity questioning, in this connection not with unmistakable court did weak, mind,” hungry facts and “in a low state of further instructed that the are pictures thirsty; seeing that after which the confes- circumstances under considered, thinking they his how nice had sion was made should friends him you “inhumanly” all the evi- been to and how had and believe from find it”; that he not a vol- been treated he “couldn’t stand dence that the confession just sto- up are free to disre- and made untary you one then cried hollered up ry all the details and asked them gard it.” —made confession, him to “let alone.” After the completely Appellant contends that No. 7 given appellant, when food drink men- psychological or ignored the issue of he four ate fifteen sandwiches and drank coercion; throughout the tal duress cups or five of coffee. the effect of appellant contended that trial deprivation Pointing absence interrogation and the intense *4 harm, physical drink, striking, beating, threats of emotionally psycho- and of food and immunity (the making promise a or to defendant him logically, was coerce into to duress will; only elements of submitted that the against his false confession consideration in the definition jury’s coercion was psychological issue of appellant argues that cau- “voluntary”) only relating to issue voluntariness tioning of No. the third confession. questioning
that and do not reference,1 brief, isolated Except for one involuntary the court make a confession any that of the twelve is no evidence instructing jurors there were to dis- was that the time; no appellant at touched officers coercion which regard any psychological transcript 769-page positive in this a occurred; 7 contains No. beaten, struck, threatened appellant was prejudicial and misstatement of highly immunity, harm, promised law, physical only or with since the issue could a confession. extort to induce or in order should have been submitted to was to relating contrary, all evidence sufficient to whether mental duress render confessions, from involuntary practiced his confession was upon the existence bore sides appellant. on men- (or psychological nonexistence) respect Appellant’s in this contentions to the recital
tal coercion.
In addition
previous decisions
are irrefutable under
original opinion bearing
on
the facts
Williams, Mo.Sup.
this Court.
State
mental
subject
State
Banc,
sit
identical
en
218-219,
S.W.2d
Bridges, supra,
l.c.
evi
presented. There was no
uation was
transcript
trial
original
reveals
that Williams’
dence and no contention
ap-
during
interrogation
the first hours of
threats, physi
produced by
confession was
pellant was not informed
reason
abuse,
or reward.
hope of lenience
cal
only that he
for his arrest but was told
issue of
only
bearing on the
The
Groves;
that at
“wanted” in
was
Webster
ex
and
voluntariness related to continuous
midnight
placed in a cell without
he was
long period of
interrogation
tended
over
blanket,
but
nothing
with
iron
mattress or
sleep,
allowing
time without
on;
Williams
during
sleep
that from time to time
and drink.
In
proper
have
food
sobbed,
rest or
yelled
he
failed to in
in that case
struction No. 7
“hollered”;
questioning nu-
during
in the def
mental duress
clude the issue of
photographers entered
room
merous
only
and submitted
voluntarily,
inition of
going
pictures;
that “bulbs were
took
threats,
abuse
physical
the elements of
off”;
appellant
“couldn’t hold [his]
or re
offering hope of lenience
down”;
statements
that he was
and “broke
emotions”
gripping
blade at
just prior
shoulder
[his]
an officer “was
time
confessed
to the
he
1. That
Transcript, p.
neck.”
[his]
ward.
(mental
Because the
duress
real issue in
coercion)
was not
the case
2d
the trial
unfair,
[4]
Tucker
the conclusion
State,
S.W.
compelled
injustice and an
that manifest
was
jury the instruction
presented
of In
giving
unfair trial
from the
resulted
“clearly
and the conviction
erroneous”
held
The
case stood
struction No. 7.
State’s
ground.
Wil
reversed on
fell
the issue of voluntariness
v. Goach
liams case was followed
confession,
way
little in
er, Mo.Sup.,
in which
for there was
376 S.W.2d
pressed
independent
of circumstantial evidence
throughout the
case
appellant
to connect
was induced
the confessions
the confession
the issue that
duress,
this crime. Therefore it was of critical
coercion
by mental
justice
importance
the administration of
“voluntar
7 defined
which Instruction No.
hope
clearly
properly in
that the
be
holding out
ily” in terms of not
punish
meaning
“vol
leniency
structed on the
of the word
or fear of
of reward
ment,
untary”;
accurately in
mentioning coercion,
that the
jurors
without
intimidation,
any equiv
proper
formed and directed
ele
pressure
mental
into
Citing
this Court re ments
could and should take
con
alent term.
Williams
the con
for error in
sideration
the conviction
versed
voluntarily
plain
given.
cer
pointing
No.
out
fessions
Instruction
instructing
in
error in this case consists
singled
out
tain elements were
*5
certainly
“voluntary”
have
means absence of
struction “should
mentioned
defining
striking,
of coercion or du
duress as
beat
specifically the element
issue,” adding
promis
ing, threatening physical
ress which was
real
harm or
hypothesize
ing
the omission to
fac
none of these factors
immunity,
basic
when
by adding
gen
tual issue was not cured
The error was
was shown in evidence.
erality
jury
right
compounded
had
to
to
by failing
con
define voluntari
surrounding
psychological
sider all of the
circumstances
ness
terms of
and mental
soul,
body and
determining
voluntariness.
also
which was the
See
Deyo, Mo.Sup.,
issue.
substance of the evidence on this
State v.
the motion for
and that No. 7
not
No. 7
new
improper criteria for the
plain er
extraneous and
should not be reviewed under the
jury’s
and omit elements vi-
not con
consideration
ror rule.2
Court will
While
determination, but
tal
essential to the
relating
sider
to instructions
matter
paragraph
also in
three
further
“plain
so misdi
went
error” unless the court has
effectively negated
possibility
jury
rected or failed
instruct the
basis of
jury finding involuntariness on the
injus
law of the
as to cause manifest
case
]
tice,
para-
Auger,
psychological or mental
coercion.
[1
jury
involving
graph
in
three the court instructed
trial errors
voluntary it is
collaterally
a confession
to make
not
be raised
structions are
it is made with-
necessary
not
to show that
glaring
as to make
unless the error
so
defectively
preserved
review,
27.20(c)
raised
Supreme
“Plain
:
Court Rule
may
rights
preserved,
affecting
deems
when the court
errors
substantial
miscarriage
jus-
injustice
trial or on
manifest
motion for new
considered on
court,
tice has
therefrom.”
resulted
in the discretion
though
court or
not
raised
the trial
expressions
persuasion
out
questioning.
court
the United
States
thereby
ques-
procedures
Court on
justified
persuasion
vol-
some
tioning.
three
untariness of confessions:
basis of
may
jury
have concluded
Lego
Twomey,
(1) In
404 U.S.
persuasion
amount of
em-
questioning
489, 490,
619, 627,
92 S.Ct.
reached issue. We are v. here it is not our function DAVIS, Appellant. James in the first instance. deal this issue No. 57571. judgment Appeals “The the Court of Missouri, Eighth Circuit is reversed and the No. 2. Division proceedings cause is remanded for further March opinion.” consistent with this that, say It would seem accurate to at (State Washington,
least since 1966 ; (Mo.1966) Stidham v. Swen
son,
1971),
(8th
have followed Massachusetts of confes It was described Commonwealth
sions. Marshall, 155 N.E.2d 338 Mass. practice (1959), as follows: “That
has been referred to in Commonwealth v. 714, 720,
Lee, N.E.2d 324 Mass. practice,’ giving
a ‘humane presiding
two chances: first before
judge may to exclude the state who decide
ments; who before the disregard judge If
may them. ex them, testimony particular
cludes judge jury;
never heard if the de competent,
termines that are disregard nevertheless them.” holdings Lego view of *7 Stidham, supra, I
Twomey and Swenson should, ques
believe we when the presented us on review
tion is practice submitting to the jury
issue of voluntariness of confession. (See Missouri cases cited
Denno, 368, at S. 908) take an
Ct. I do not question at position
irreversible that an accused as
time. now of his confes
sured that the voluntariness judges by state
sion be determined will Stidham, (Mo.
(State (Swen- judges federal
1970)), Stidham, that he supra), I doubt
son v. protection determina
needs the
tion.