State v. Beeler
| Decision Date | 22 February 2000 |
| Citation | 12 S.W.3d 294 |
| Parties | (Mo.banc 2000) . State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Scott Robert Beeler, Appellant. Case Number: SC81975 Supreme Court of Missouri Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Schuyler County, Hon. Gary Dial
Counsel for Appellant: Donald L. Wolff
Counsel for Respondent: Philip M. Koppe
Opinion Summary:
Lancaster city marshal Scott Robert Beeler was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a man during a traffic stop.
REVERSED.
Court en banc holds:
The court instructed the jury on second-degree murder, self-defense, and involuntary manslaughter. The court erred in submitting the instruction on involuntary manslaughter.
(A) Contrary to Beeler's argument, reckless conduct for manslaughter is not inconsistent with the intentional act of defending one's self, if in doing so one uses unreasonable force. The statutory definition of "reckless" conduct is that the actor is liable for an intentional act if there is a conscious disregard of a risk of death to another and such disregard is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. To the extent cases stand for the proposition that self-defense in a homicide forecloses involuntary manslaughter because such offense requires an accidental act or unintended consequence, they are overruled.
(B) Statute provides that lesser-included offense instructions are permitted. Nevertheless, if there were a logical inconsistency in giving a lesser-included offense instruction in a particular factual context so as to result in some deprivation of right, such as double jeopardy, it would be error to so instruct, even in the absence of a statutory prohibition.
(C) The jury was instructed in such a way that it could have decided (1) Beeler shot in self-defense and (2) Beeler acted recklessly by consciously disregarding a risk that grossly deviated from reasonable behavior. Such conclusions are necessarily inconsistent. One cannot be said to act reasonably, as self-defense requires, and grossly deviate from reasonableness, exhibiting a reckless state of mind, at the same time. In the circumstances, the jury's acquittal of Beeler of second-degree murder was based on the theory of self-defense. That verdict forecloses any further trial on the question of whether Beeler acted reasonably. His conviction is reversed, and he is discharged.
Opinion Vote: REVERSED. All concur.
Defendant Scott Robert Beeler appeals his conviction by a Schuyler County jury of involuntary manslaughter, sec. 565.024.1(1)1, for which he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. This Court ordered the case transferred from the court of appeals after opinion. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
Defendant was the city marshal of Lancaster, Missouri. In the early morning of December 31, 1996, he stopped Ashley McElroy for driving with a headlight out and radioed the Schuyler County sheriff's department for information. The radio dispatcher learned that McElroy's driver's license had expired and relayed that information to defendant. Almost immediately, defendant radioed the dispatcher, reporting that he "had a man down." He also requested that the Schuyler County sheriff, chief deputy, and defendant's father be summoned.
The sheriff proceeded to the church parking lot where the cars of defendant and McElroy were stopped and found defendant motioning him to pull into the lot. Defendant appeared excited and told the sheriff, The sheriff asked defendant where McElroy was, and defendant responded that he was in his own car. As the sheriff approached McElroy's car, defendant followed him saying, "I hope the son of a bitch is dead."
When he reached McElroy's vehicle, the sheriff opened the passenger door and saw McElroy lying across the front seat with his head toward the passenger side of the car. The sheriff checked the body for signs of life but found none. On the floorboard, underneath McElroy's foot, he found a hammer.
A criminal investigator with the Missouri Highway Patrol noticed McElroy's driver's side window was rolled down about nine and one half inches. Upon further inspection, he discovered the interior handle to the driver's side door was missing. The door, which could not be opened from the inside, could only be opened by rolling down the window and reaching outside to grab the exterior handle. Another officer found four shell casings around McElroy's car, and a fifth was located later.
An autopsy revealed McElroy had sustained multiple gunshot wounds. The examining physician testified McElroy had been shot in the upper left chest, again lower on his left side, in the right hip, in his lower back, and finally in his left hand. Two of the shots were fatal.
A county medical worker called to the scene asked defendant who the victim was. Defendant replied, "I'm tired of this [expletives]." Again, the man asked him to identify the victim, and defendant informed him it was McElroy. A state trooper approached defendant and asked, "[H]ow are you doing?" He responded, "I'm doing fine, but that [expletive] isn't." Then, defendant added, Defendant continued to repeat that several times.
In his written statement, defendant said he stopped McElroy's vehicle for having a headlight burned out. He approached the vehicle, identified himself, and asked McElroy to roll down his window. McElroy said he could not roll it down as the knob was broken. Defendant asked McElroy for his driver's license, but McElroy said he did not have it with him. Defendant returned to his patrol car and requested a license check on McElroy from the dispatcher. The dispatcher told defendant that McElroy's license had expired. Then, McElroy started his car and pulled it alongside defendant's patrol car, so that the two vehicles were facing opposite directions. As defendant reached for his ticket book, McElroy asked, "[W]hat are you doing?" He informed McElroy that he intended to give him a ticket for driving with an expired license. McElroy became verbally abusive.
Defendant stated that at that point, he instructed McElroy to calm-down, got out of his patrol car, and handed him a ticket. Meanwhile, defendant noticed McElroy's right hand moving under the seat "in a quick manner." In response, defendant quickly turned around to get his flashlight to see what McElroy was doing. At that point, he noticed McElroy "still moving quickly." Defendant yelled, "Police, stop." He then saw "a weapon" in McElroy's hand. McElroy turned toward him, and defendant began shooting. While firing the last shot, he stated he saw what looked like a hammer moving across the path of his flashlight.
A Missouri Highway Patrol criminal investigator interviewed defendant following his written statement. Defendant told the investigator essentially the same story. However, several inconsistencies were apparent. First, defendant said when he initially noticed McElroy's movements, he returned to his patrol car to retrieve his flashlight rather than twisting around to remove it from his person. He also claimed that when he returned to McElroy's car with his flashlight, McElroy was still reaching about under the seat, moving his hand in an erratic fashion. Then, defendant told the investigator he instructed McElroy to get his hands in plain sight, but McElroy failed to comply. Next, he said he saw what appeared to be a weapon in McElroy's hand, and defendant began shooting. Although he did not know what the object was, defendant informed the investigator he knew it was a weapon.
Defendant was charged with second degree murder. The jury was instructed on second degree murder, which included a self-defense instruction, and a separate instruction on involuntary manslaughter, which contained no reference to self-defense. The jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter.
Beeler's single point on appeal is that the trial court erred in submitting the instruction on involuntary manslaughter because of the absence of evidence to support a finding that he acted in a reckless manner. He asserts that it is inconsistent to be acquitted of second degree murder where the evidence supports submission of self-defense and to be convicted of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. In the context of this case he is correct, but for a somewhat different reason than he asserts. The analysis of his claim centers on four statutes.
The first is sec. 565.024.1 which, in relevant part, provides:
A person commits the crime of voluntary manslaughter if he:
(1) recklessly causes the death of another person;
. . . .
The second statute is sec. 562.016.4. In relevant part, it states:
. . . .
A person "acts recklessly" or is reckless when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
The third statute is sec. 565.025.2(2), which provides:
The lesser offenses of murder second degree are:
. . . .
(b) involuntary manslaughter under subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of section 565.025.The fourth statute is sec. 556.046.2, a general provision of our criminal code. It states:
The court shall not be obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense.
Defendant argues that the word "reckless" means an unintentional or accidental act or consequence. He claims that the shooting that occurred here was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...evidence regarding the syndrome to support claims of perfect self-defense. Anderson , 785 S.W.2d at 599, 600 ; see State v. Beeler , 12 S.W.3d 294, 298 (Mo. 2000) (explaining that Missouri statutory law refers to imperfect self-defense as "recklessness"); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031 (1977) (de......
-
State v. Pierce
...presented that an essential element of the greater offense has not been established, the trial court should instruct down”), State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Mo. banc 2000) (“[W]here the facts are such that no rational factfinder could conclude the defendant acted without deliberation, ......
-
State v. Jackson
...presented that an essential element of the greater offense has not been established, the trial court should instruct down”); State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Mo. banc 2000) (“[W]here the facts are such that no rational factfinder could conclude the defendant acted without deliberation, ......
-
State v. Glass
...is clear the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury so that it is apparent the error affected the verdict." State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294, 300 (Mo. banc 10. In his brief, Glass also requests that this Court review for plain error the argument that the "terrorize" element......
-
Judicial Exploitation of Mens Rea Confusion, at Common Law and Under the Model Penal Code
...Penal Code Sec. 2.02 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985). For better reasoning in a roughly similar case, see State v. Beeler, 12 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. 2000). [382]. 719 A.2d 1081 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). [383]. See id. at 1084. [384]. Id. at 1083. [385]. See id. at 1085-86 (Cavanaugh, J., d......