State v. Edwards
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Maynard |
| Citation | State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. 2001) |
| Decision Date | 29 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | WD55243 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larna Lue Edwards, Appellant. WD55243 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District 0 |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Caldwell County, Hon. Stephen K. Griffin
Opinion Summary: On July 24, 1996, Larna Edwards shot her husband, Bill Edwards, four times with a .38 caliber handgun. Mr. Edwards died from the wounds he received. As a result, the Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney charged Mrs. Edwards by information with murder in the second degree, section 565.021.1(1).1 Prior to trial, Mrs. Edward's attorney filed written notice with the court, as required by section 563.033.2, advising that he intended to offer evidence of battered spouse syndrome. Subsequently, extensive evidence about battered spouse syndrome and its applicability to and impact on Mrs. Edwards was presented at trial. On October 24, 1997, a jury acquitted her of murder in the second degree but found her guilty of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, section 565.023.1(1). Mrs. Edwards' Motion for New Trial was subsequently denied, and on December 8, 1997, she was sentenced to five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Mrs. Edwards appeals her conviction.
Division holds: (1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the instructions proffered by Mrs. Edwards related to battered spouse syndrome where the language of those instructions improperly directed the jury's attention to the testimony of one of Mrs. Edwards' expert witnesses and therefore lacked impartiality as required by Rule 28.02(d).
(2) MAI-CR3d 302.01 is the only instruction to be given on the weight and value of the evidence and the believability of witnesses, and the instructions proffered by Mrs. Edwards improperly attempted to instruct the jury on the effect of the expert's testimony and inferentially commented on the weight and value to be given to that testimony.
(3) The enactment of section 563.033 substantively changed the law related to self-defense by allowing evidence of battered spouse syndrome to be submitted into evidence on the issue of self-defense.
(4) Where applicable, Section 563.033 mandates modification of MAI-CR3d 302.01 because that instruction does not provide a mechanism for applying the battered spouse syndrome provisions of section 563.033.
(5) The trial court erred in submitting the unmodified version of MAI-CR3d 302.01 to the jury because that instruction failed to allow the jury to consider previous acts of violence or threats in assessing whether Mrs. Edwards could have retreated from the situation or whether she had reasonable cause to believe she was in danger of death or serious physical injury.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo (1994) unless otherwise noted.
Joseph M. Ellis, Judge
On July 24, 1996, Larna Edwards shot her husband, Bill Edwards, four times with a .38 caliber handgun. Mr. Edwards died from the wounds he received. As a result, the Caldwell County Prosecuting Attorney charged Mrs. Edwards by information with murder in the second degree, section 565.021.1(1).1 On October 24, 1997, a jury acquitted her of murder in the second degree but found her guilty of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, section 565.023.1(1). Mrs. Edwards' Motion for New Trial was subsequently denied, and on December 8, 1997, she was sentenced to five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Mrs. Edwards appealed from that judgment, and on March 28, 2000, this Court reversed her conviction on a claim of instructional error. Thereafter, the State filed an application for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, which was granted on June 27, 2000.
Just days before the case was to be orally argued in the Supreme Court, the State discovered that Instruction number 7 that had been included in the legal file was not the instruction actually given to the jury at trial. According to the parties, two instructions submitted to the trial court had been labeled "Instruction number 7," and the clerk of the circuit court had provided the wrong Instruction number 7 for inclusion in the legal file. Instruction number 7 was the critical instruction addressed by the parties in their briefs and arguments in this Court, and it was the basis of this Court's holding in the original opinion. Indeed, Instruction number 7 was the focus of the parties' arguments in their substitute briefs filed in the Supreme Court. In any event, the parties filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking leave to supplement the record to include the Instruction number 7 actually used at trial. On the date scheduled for oral argument, the Supreme Court granted the motion and re-transferred the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of the supplemental record. The parties were allowed to file new briefs and to re-argue the cause. Accordingly, we once again address Mrs. Edwards' appeal.
As noted previously, on July 24, 1996, Mrs. Edwards shot her husband, Bill Edwards, four times with a .38 caliber handgun. Mr. Edwards died from the wounds. Prior to trial, Mrs. Edwards' defense counsel filed written notice with the court, as required by section 563.033.2, advising that he intended to offer evidence of the battered spouse syndrome.2 Subsequently, extensive evidence about battered spouse syndrome and its applicability to and impact on Mrs. Edwards was presented at trial. In addition, Mrs. Edwards testified in her own defense. The following is a summary of that evidence, as well as the facts surrounding the shooting.
Mrs. Edwards dropped out of school to elope with Mr. Edwards in 1953, when she as sixteen years old.3 The marriage produced a daughter and two sons. Mr. Edwards began verbally and physically abusing Mrs. Edwards from the first day of their marriage, often hitting her with his fist, the back of his hand, or pieces of furniture. Mr. Edwards would also kick her and pull out some of her hair. When Mrs. Edwards was pregnant with their fourth child, Mr. Edwards struck her in the stomach, causing a miscarriage. He frequently threatened to kill Mrs. Edwards and their children, and he told her that he would track her down and kill her if she tried to run away.
Mr. Edwards also frequently struck the children with his fists or a belt, held them by the hair and/or kicked them. On one occasion, Mr. Edwards kicked their oldest son down a flight of stairs. In 1966, when their daughter Jackie was approximately thirteen years old, Mr. Edwards held a gun to her head, forced her to have sexual intercourse with him repeatedly and threatened to kill her if she did not comply or told anyone.4
Mrs. Edwards left Mr. Edwards two different times, but on both occasions she returned home after Mr. Edwards promised that the beatings would not happen again.5 However, after she returned, this "honeymoon" period would only last two or three days.
During the 1960's, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards ran a liquor store in Claycomo, Missouri. Mrs. Edwards also earned a realtor's license. Subsequently, the Edwards owned and operated a convenience store in Kingston, Missouri, called "The Country Store." Co-workers, customers, family members and acquaintances testified at trial that they often saw Mrs. Edwards with bruises on her face and arms and black eyes, and an employee of the store testified that he witnessed Mr. Edwards screaming and swearing at Mrs. Edwards at the store.
On one occasion in early 1996, Mrs. Edwards sought help from Caldwell County Sheriff Wayne Adkison. At trial, Sheriff Adkison testified that Mrs. Edwards came to his office to report her husband's violent behavior. At that time, he observed bruises on both of Mrs. Edwards' arms. However, Sheriff Adkison did not file a report or follow up on the complaint. Sheriff Adkison also testified that on another occasion Mrs. Edwards' daughter had contacted him about domestic violence in the home and her fear for her mother's safety, but he likewise did not file a report on that complaint.
On July 23, 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards went to a car dealership in Kansas City, Kansas, and entered into an agreement to purchase a truck. As they were driving home, Mr. Edwards began to argue about the purchase. The argument continued after they got home. During that argument, Mr. Edwards pushed Mrs. Edwards and struck her with a hard object. Mrs. Edwards then went to bed, but remained awake all night for fear Mr. Edwards would kill her in her sleep. Mrs. Edwards testified at trial that it was her custom to either just sit quietly and not speak, trying not to incite him, or to just go to bed. She stated that she was afraid to go to sleep during such episodes because Mr. Edwards would frequently attack her while she was sleeping. Mrs. Edwards testified that she had experienced the same fear innumerable times during the course of her marriage.
The following morning at about 6:15 a.m., Mr. Edwards struck Mrs. Edwards, knocking off her glasses and causing her wristwatch to stop. Subsequently, Mrs. Edwards made breakfast for her husband, and they both went to work at the store. Once they arrived at work, Mr. Edwards continued the argument about the truck. During that argument, Mr. Edwards severely struck Mrs. Edwards' arm, apparently with a length of lead pipe, as she raised her arm to protect her face. At that point, Mrs. Edwards thought her arm might be broken. Mrs. Edwards testified at trial that this blow was the most painful she had ever experienced. She stated that from the look in Mr. Edwards' eyes and her past experience with him, she was certain that he was going to try to kill her.6 Mrs. Edwards testified, "I knew one of us was not going to walk out of that store."
After Mr. Edwards hit her, Mrs. Edwards picked up a .38 caliber handgun that was kept under the front counter in the store for security. When Mr. Edwards started to swear at her, Mrs. Edwards shot...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Stewart
... ... Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky.1999); State v. Anaya, 438 A.2d 892 (Me.1981); State v. Smullen, 380 Md. 233, 844 A.2d 429 (2004); People v. Wilson, 194 Mich.App. 599, 487 N.W.2d 822 (1992); State v. Hennum, 441 N.W.2d 793 (Minn.1989); State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo.Ct.App.2001); Boykins v. State, 116 Nev. 171, 995 P.2d 474 (2000); State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 478 A.2d 364 (1984); People v. Seeley, 186 Misc.2d 715, 720 N.Y.S.2d 315 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2000); State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D.1983); Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 ... ...
-
Lannert v. Jones, 01-3665.
... ... The neighbor went to Defendant's house, discovered the body, and called for emergency help ... State v. Lannert, 889 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) ... Charged with murder in the first degree and other related felonies, Lannert ... Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602, 614-15 (Mo.Ct.App.2001) (discussing Williams, 787 S.W.2d at 308) ... After reviewing the above-cited authority, ... ...
-
State v. Frei
... ... at *6 (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602, 613 (Mo.Ct.App.2001)). While the decision in the unreported Price decision is not binding authority for this court, it appears to be the only decision of an appellate court in the state addressing the admissibility of expert testimony about BWS offered by a ... ...
-
Harrington v. State
... ... State v. Pisciotta, 968 S.W.2d 185, 189 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) ." ... State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602, 613-14 (Mo.Ct.App.2001) (emphasis added) ... Numerous other state courts have discussed the admissibility of evidence of battered spouse syndrome. See, e.g., Trujillo v. State, 953 P.2d 1182 (Wyo.1998) ; State v. Steele, 178 W.Va. 330, 359 S.E.2d 558 (1987) ... ...
-
Scientific Principles and Experiments
...v. Williams, 787 S.W.2d 308, 310–13 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990) (admission of expert testimony required and requirements); State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (instruction must be modified). · Rape trauma syndrome, State v. Taylor, 663 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. banc 1984) (evidence that sex......
-
Section 23.28 Battered Spouse Syndrome
...at 837–38. The traditional concepts of self-defense do not apply to persons suffering from battered spouse syndrome. State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). A battered woman is a terror-stricken person whose mental state is distorted. Id. (citing State v. Hundley, 693 P.2d 475......
-
Section 20.3 Pleadings
...isolation, withdrawal, and a heightened sensitivity to situations that precede violence or an increase in violence.” State v. Edwards, 60 S.W.3d 602, 613 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). While the battered spouse syndrome does not constitute a defense, evidence of the presence of the syndrome may be a......