State v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 55616,No. 1,55616,1 |
| Citation | 467 S.W.2d 866 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Napoleon Jerome DUNCAN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Kermit W. Almstedt, Asst. Anny. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.
Defendant, Napoleon Jerome Duncan, was charged with the offense of murder in the second degree. Upon trial he was found guilty and his punishment was fixed by the jury at imprisonment for a turm of ten years. See §§ 559.020 and 559.030. 1 He has appealed.
There was evidence to indicate that on January 12, 1969, defendant shot Donald Regans and that Regans died shortly thereafter as a result of that wound. Since the only contention of error on appeal relates to the ruling on a pretrial motion no further facts need be stated.
The sole point presented to this court is that 'the trial court erred in denying appellant who pleaded self-defense to introduce the police record of the deceased to show deceased's violent and turbulent nature as such evidence tended to establish the basis for appellant's apprehension of deceased.' That contention is based on the fact that the trial court, just prior to the commencement of the trial, overruled the following motion: 'Comes now the defendant by his attorneys and prays the court to compel the State to produce certain police records pertaining to the arrest or arrest and conviction of the deceased Donald Regans for the purpose of showing that the deceased was possessed of a violent, turbulent and aggressive nature, and for the purpose of showing that the deceased provoked the altercation which resulted in his death.'
In the trial court discussion relating to the motion it appeared that a subponena duces tecum had also been issued for those records and it was quashed on motion of the State. The only statement in the nature of an offer of proof by defendant's counsel was as follows: 'That the record would tend to show that the deceased was possessed of a violent and turbulent nature, that he had been engaged in brawls with others in the past; and that it would show * * * that he, by his aggressiveness and turbulent nature, brought on the controversy which resulted in his death.' While that offer is not at all specific we will assume for the purposes of our decision that the police records would have shown that deceased had been arrested and convicted of crimes of a violent nature.
It has long been the rule in this State that where the defense is self-defense evidence is competent to prove that the deceased bore the reputation of being of a violent and turbulent disposition or character, but that such must be proved by testimony concerning his general reputation and not by evidence of specific acts of violence having no connection with defendant. See State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159; State v. Roberts,294 Mo. 284, 242 S.W. 669; State v. Naylor, 328 Mo. 335, 40 S.W.2d 1079; State v. Smart, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 569; State v. Davis, Mo.Sup., 365 S.W.2d 577; and State v. Hicks, Mo.Sup., 438 S.W.2d 215(6).
Defendant concedes that it is the established rule that specific acts of violence may not be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving that deceased was of a violent or turbulent nature. He says, however, that the rule is not sound and that no Missouri case has seriously inquired into whether the rule is founded upon a sound logical basis and requests that we overrule the many cases that have approved it. It is true, as defendant suggests, that most of our cases have simply relied on precedent in applying the rule and have not discussed the reasons for it.
The first case we have found which states the rule is State v. Elkins, supra (1876). It did so without discussion or citation of authority, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waller
...that evidence of the victim's specific acts of violence having no connection with the defendant is inadmissible. See State v. Duncan, 467 S.W.2d 866, 867-68 (Mo.1971), and cases cited therein. 1 Missouri has followed what had been the general rule, until recent decades. See Annotation, Admi......
-
State v. Crow
...State v. Parker, 358 Mo. 262, 214 S.W.2d 25; State v. Blair, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 435; State v. Hicks, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 215; State v. Duncan, Mo., 467 S.W.2d 866. In this case self-defense was not an issue and the trial court properly rejected such Citing State v. Blair, supra, appellant further ......
-
Maggitt v. Wyrick
...for violence is admissible but specific acts of violence which are not connected to the defendant are not admissible. State v. Duncan, 467 S.W.2d 866 (Mo.1971). The court also held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in not declaring a mistrial on the basis of the prosecutor's......
-
State v. Ivicsics
...general reputation and not, as defendant urges, by specific acts of violence which are not connected with defendant. State v. Duncan, 467 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Mo.1971). The fact that defendant may have been aware of the specific acts of violence directed toward others does not change this rule,......