State v. Blair

• Decision Date: 14 October 1957
• Docket Number: No. 45387,No. 1,45387,1
• Citation: State v. Blair, 305 S.W.2d 435 (Mo. 1957)
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Blanche BLAIR, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 435

305 S.W.2d 435

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Blanche BLAIR, Appellant.

No. 45387.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Oct. 14, 1957.

No brief filed for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., J. Richard Roberts, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

COIL, Commissioner.

Appellant, herein called defendant, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. She has filed no brief. We, therefore, examine the new trial motion. No claim is therein made that the state failed to make a submissible case and consequently a brief statement of facts will suffice.

Defendant admitted that on December 16, 1954, she shot and killed Leo Johnson but adduced substantial evidence that she did so in self-defense. Her evidence in that respect was that deceased, who lived across the hall, entered her room and demanded that she awaken the man with whom she was living, and, upon her refusal, cursed her, left, returned and again requested that she wake the man, again cursed her for refusing and again left; that thereafter, when defendant went into the hall, decedent again cursed her, threatened to kill her, followed her into her room, struck her on the head with a wine bottle, and said that he was going to get a knife and cut her throat. Thereafter, defendant loaded a shotgun for her protection, but intended to immediately leave the building. As she started to leave her room, decedent was coming from his room with a knife in his hand and threatened to kill her, whereupon she shot and killed him.

Assignments 2D and E in defendant's new trial motion are, in substance, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendant to testify that she knew that decedent had the reputation for possessing a rash, quarrelsome, turbulent, and violent disposition. We are of the view that this contention must be sustained.

It is the law that 'Evidence that deceased bore the reputation of having a turbulent or violent disposition or character is competent where, as here, the defense is self-defense. State v. Naylor, 328 Mo. 335, 40 S.W.2d 1079; State v. Turnbo, Mo.Sup., 267 S.W. 847.' State v. Parker, 358 Mo. 262, 268, 214 S.W.2d 25, 27[2, 3]. But such evidence is not admissible on the issue of self-defense unless the defendant knew of deceased's reputation for a violent disposition. State v. Carroll, 333 Mo. 558, 567, 62 S.W.2d 863, 868. The trial court in the instant case gave instruction 6: 'If the jury believe and find from the evidence that the deceased Leo Johnson was of a rash, turbulent and violent disposition and that defendant had knowledge of such disposition, then it is a circumstance for the consideration of the jury in considering the reasonable cause for defendant's apprehension of great personal injury to herself.' Defendant was entitled to that instruction. State v. Parker, supra, 214 S.W.2d 27. It is apparent that by giving instruction 6, after having excluded the only proffered evidence upon which that instruction could have been based, the trial court magnified its error in having excluded that evidence initially.

The state does not...