State v. Browning, 53541
| Decision Date | 14 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 53541,53541 |
| Citation | 442 S.W.2d 55 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Billy Ray BROWNING, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Frederick E. Steck, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Sikeston, for respondent.
J. Arnot Hill, John J. Cosgrove, Kansas City, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, for appellant.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Billy Ray Browning, convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, has appealed on the sole ground that the court erred in not instructing that defendant should be acquitted if the homicide was excusable on account of accident.
The state's case tended to show these facts: Defendant, one Bell and others attended a private party at a residence in Kansas City. When the party broke up the guests went to the bedroom to get their coats. A guest named Louise discovered that her coat was missing. A search was begun. Defendant came out of the bedroom, stated that his coat was also missing, and that no one would leave until he found his coat. Louise and one James Elliott started to leave but defendant blocked the door, repeating his statement that no one was going to leave until he found his coat. Elliott tried to reason with defendant and went to open the door. Defendant again blocked the door and said About that time Louise's husband came to the front door and knocked. Elliott suggested that defendant let her go ahead; that she didn't have his coat and that her coat was also missing. Defendant opened the door, permitted Louise to leave, shut the door, pushed Elliott back and pulled out a pistol, saying that no one was going to leave and threatening to shoot anyone that touched the door until he found his coat. Elliott told defendant that he did not have his coat and that he was going home; that if he was going to shoot somebody he had better start shooting because he was going to go out the door. At that point Ellington Bell walked up to defendant and said, Bell also told defendant that he was 'wrong keeping these people here like this.' Defendant again threatened to kill anybody who touched the door. Bell said, 'Billy Ray, I'm going to open this door and you are wrong if you shoot this man and if you shoot me you are wrong.' Bell made a motion toward the dooknob 'like he was going to pull the door open', or actually put his hand on the door. When he did so defendant pulled the trigger. Bell, struck by a bullet, was taken to a hospital where he died on the operating table as a result of the wound and internal bleeding. After shooting Bell defendant said,
Defendant took the stand and testified that when he discovered that his coat was missing he pulled out his pistol and said, 'No one is going to leave until I find my coat.' He testified that he allowed the lady to leave, after which he closed the door behind her and repeated that no one was going to leave until he first found his coat. He said that Bell informed him that he did not have defendant's coat and that he was leaving; that defendant responded by saying, 'If you don't have my coat, just show me and you can go' and that Bell said, 'I don't have your coat.' Defendant further testified that about that time Bell, who was then only a foot or two away from defendant, facing him, 'lunged' at defendant 'like he was trying to grab the gun' and that when Bell reached for the pistol defendant pulled his hand back to keep Bell from grabbing the pistol and the gun went off. Admitting that he pointed the gun at Bell and that he pulled the trigger, defendant testified that he did not pull the trigger 'willingly.'
Defendant does not seek to justify the killing as in self-defense, but seeks to bring the killing within the purview of § 559.050, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., as having been committed by accident or misfortune, and therefore excusable. The alleged error in not instructing on accidental homicide was not preserved in the motion for new trial and the question before us is whether the judgment should be reversed under Criminal Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R., 1 Commonly known as the plain error rule.
Defendant is not entitled to relief under this rule because no error was committed. Defendant was not entitled to instruction on accidental homicide for the reason that the facts of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harley
...while engaged in a lawful enterprise and without negligence on his part to be entitled to the defense of excusable homicide, State v. Browning, 442 S.W.2d 55, 57(4) (Mo. banc 1969); State v. Cook, 512 S.W.2d 907, 910(4) (Mo.App.1974), and in this first-degree felony murder case, there was n......
-
State v. Stubenrouch
...with usual and ordinary caution, and without unlawful intent;" This statute is a restatement of the common law on the subject. State v. Browning, 442 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1969); State v. Cook, 512 S.W.2d 907, 910 (Mo.App.1974). Generally "the accident that will acquit a defendant is the ......
-
State v. Thomas
...by means of assault and battery when defendant shoved her into the wall and caused her to become drenched in lighted gasoline. State v. Browning, 442 S.W.2d 55, 57 (Mo. banc 1969); State v. Simpson, 471 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.1971); State v. Grant, 372 S.W.2d 9, 14 (Mo.1963); State v. Aitkens, 352 ......
-
State v. Ameen
...State v. Crowley, 345 Mo. 1177, 139 S.W.2d 473; State v. Stone, 354 Mo. 41, 188 S.W.2d 20. The state argues that under State v. Browning (Mo.Sup.banc) 442 S.W.2d 55, accidental killing does not constitute an excusable homicide within the meaning of Sec. 559.050, if the homicide was committe......