State v. Griffin
Decision Date | 13 July 1993 |
Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
Citation | 859 S.W.2d 816 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David L. GRIFFIN, Appellant. 45748. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert G. Duncan, Duncan, Coulson, Schloss, Chancellor & Norris, Kansas City, for appellant.
Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and Hanna, JJ.
David L. Griffin appeals from his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(4), RSMo 1986, 1 for which he was sentenced to one year in prison.Griffin raises three points on appeal claiming that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; 2) submitting Instruction 6, the verdict-directing instruction, without cross-referencing Instruction 5, the self-defense instruction; and 3) refusing to allow Griffin to admit into evidence and to play a tape recording of a telephone call which impeached the credibility of a prosecution witness.The judgment is affirmed.
The instant case is complicated by racial overtones and allegations of a love triangle.These factors increased the tensions surrounding the incident from which the charges against Griffin arose.At the time of the events in the instant case, Griffin was the principal of Westport High School in Kansas City, Missouri.Griffin is black.Jamie Draper was a middle school teacher who had known Griffin for about four years.Michael Grey was a federal prison guard.Both Draper and Grey are white.
There was evidence of an affair between Griffin and Draper several years before the incident at hand.Draper testified that they were no longer romantically involved and were now just good friends.Grey's testimony as to statements made by Griffin was contrary to Draper's testimony and implied an on-going relationship.Conflicting evidence was also presented at trial as to the true nature of the relationship between Draper and Grey.In the light most favorable to the verdict, State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 11(Mo. banc 1991), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081(1991), the evidence was that Grey considered Draper his girlfriend and lover, often sent her flowers, took her out on dates to baseball games and regularly spent Sunday nights with her.Draper testified, however, that she was not Grey's girlfriend and she did not go out on dates with him.She further testified that she did not want him to come over to her apartment so she agreed to meet him at her mother's house, and that he sometimes followed her and had been caught sneaking around her apartment complex.Mark Cason, the resident manager of Draper's apartment complex, testified that he had seen Grey sneaking around the complex and following Draper.Cason had confronted Grey on one such occasion.
On September 23, 1990, Grey attended Draper's softball game in Gladstone.After the game, Draper and Grey drove in separate cars to the home of Draper's mother where they ate dinner.Draper ate hurriedly and left after explaining that she had school papers to grade.Grey testified that he found Draper's actions unusual since he and Draper usually spent Sunday evenings together.Because Draper's actions made Grey suspicious, he went to her apartment about thirty minutes after Draper left her mother's house.
Draper answered the door, closed it behind her and stepped out onto the balcony with Grey.Grey and Draper began to argue after Draper told him that she had an old boyfriend in her apartment.Grey estimated that he and Draper argued on the balcony for fifteen to twenty minutes.During this time Grey observed a tall black man wearing a white baseball cap and glasses standing inside Draper's apartment.Grey later identified this man as Griffin.Draper asked Grey to leave.After Draper went back into the apartment, Grey sat down at the bottom of the steps.Grey heard Draper telling Griffin in a loud voice that she loved him and that Grey did not mean anything to her.Grey, being in an emotionally distraught state, walked around the apartment complex parking lot to collect himself before driving home.
Shortly thereafter, Grey heard Draper's apartment door slam and saw Draper hurry down the stairs and walk away from the apartment complex.Grey testified that Griffin came down the stairs after Draper and drove away in a small Toyota automobile.Grey followed Draper on foot because he wanted to talk to her.Griffin saw Grey following Draper and he drove up to where Draper was walking.Draper got into Griffin's car.Grey turned around to walk back to his car which was still parked at Draper's apartment complex.
When Grey got back to the parking lot, Griffin was blocking the path to Grey's automobile.Grey told Griffin, "[Y]ou and I have something in common, and I don't want any part of it, I just want to get in the car."Grey testified that Griffin ran back to his Toyota and reached in the passenger window, where Draper was sitting.When he turned back to face Grey, he was pointing a pistol at Grey.Griffin approached Grey with the pistol in his left hand and a knife in his right hand.Griffin then knocked Grey to the ground by punching him in the mouth twice.Griffin straddled Grey, hit him in the forehead with the pistol, held the knife to his neck and threatened to blow Grey's head off if Grey did not leave Draper alone.
Grey was able to break away from Griffin when Griffin was distracted by the lights of a car entering the parking lot.Grey ran to his car and drove about two blocks to a fire station where he found two police officers.The officers called for assistance and drove Grey back to Draper's apartment complex.Griffin was just driving out of the parking lot when the officers arrived.The officers pulled Griffin over and placed him under arrest.When asked whether he had a gun, Griffin told the officers that he did not and that there was not a gun in the car.Draper arrived at the scene of Griffin's arrest shortly thereafter and insisted that there was no gun involved.
At the time of the incident at issue, Tracey Scott lived in the same apartment complex as Draper.Scott observed the altercation from the balcony of her apartment.Scott testified that she saw "a white man down on the ground and a black man over him, straddling him, with a gun to his forehead and a switchblade or knife to his left hand side."Scott heard the white man pleading, "Don't kill me, don't kill me."Scott went to a neighboring apartment and called the police.After the police talked with Scott, they arrested Griffin for aggravated assault and took him to the police station.
During an inventory search of Griffin's car, the police found a three inch dagger-shaped knife which Griffin claimed was a cake-cutting utensil used by his six-year old son during food preparation activities at school.The morning after Griffin's arrest, the police searched the apartment complex grounds and found a gun in a holster.Griffin stipulated at trial that the gun was his.
Griffin was charged with two counts of unlawful use of a weapon.In Count I, he was charged with violating § 571.030.1(4) by knowingly exhibiting a knife and a .380 automatic pistol in an angry or threatening manner.He was charged in the second count with violating § 571.030.1(1) by knowingly carrying concealed upon or about his person a knife.The state entered a nolle prosequi as to Count II at the beginning of trial.At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury was instructed on unlawful use of a weapon under § 571.030.1(4) only as to the gun.Griffin was found guilty and sentenced to one year in prison.He appeals from that judgment of conviction and sentence.
Griffin argues in Point I that the jury's guilty verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence.Griffin asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence did not establish the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt as a matter of law.
Section 571.030 provides that a Self-defense is a defense to a charge of exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner.State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 36(Mo. banc 1992).In a prosecution under § 571.030.1(4), deadly force would only be justifiable if the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of "death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping."Id.
Griffin asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal only when the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict.State v. Blue, 811 S.W.2d 405, 409(Mo.App.1991).It is the trial court's responsibility to determine whether there is sufficient evidence from which reasonable persons could find the defendant guilty.Id.To sustain Griffin's claim that he is entitled to acquittal as a matter of law, undisputed and uncontradicted evidence must clearly establish that he acted in self-defense.State v. Allison, 845 S.W.2d 642, 645(Mo.App.1992).
Neither Griffin nor the prosecution presented evidence of self-defense in this case.Griffin's evidence, rather than showing that Griffin had used the gun in self-defense, was that Griffin had not used the gun at all.Griffin testified that he offered Draper a ride back to her apartment when he saw Grey following her.They parked and were talking when they saw Grey sneaking between the buildings of the apartment complex.Griffin went to investigate but did not see Grey.Griffin was walking back to his car when Grey...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 7-day Trial
-
State v. Howard, s. 18265
...include a cross-reference to each special negative defense upon which a special instruction has been given. See State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Mo.App.1993); MAI-CR.3d 304.02, Notes on Use 11 sub. p. 2. See also MAI-CR.3d 306.08, Notes on Use 2. Failure to provide cross-references as......
-
State v. Westfall
...and "evidence to support the theory." (Citations Omitted) State v. McQueen, 431 S.W.2d 445, 448-49 (Mo.1968). 8. State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Adkins, 537 S.W.2d 246, 249 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Wright, 352 Mo. 66, 175 S.W.2d 866, 872 (banc 1943); State v. Th......
-
State v. Geary
...reasonably believing that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury, rape, sodomy, kidnapping or death. State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816, 819 (Mo.App.1993). See also State v. Trainer, 336 Mo. 620, 80 S.W.2d 131, 134 (1935); State v. Williams, 815 S.W.2d 43, 48 (Mo.App.1991) (For ......
-
State v. Powers, s. WD
...is substantial evidence putting self-defense in issue, the court is required to instruct the jury on self-defense. State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Mo.App.1993). In determining whether there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to support an instruction, the evidence is viewed in th......
-
Section 14.57 Justifiable Homicide Decisions
...from either the defense or the prosecution, the court must instruct on the issue whether requested to or not. State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993). Self-defense may be available in a charge of unlawful use of a weapon by flourishing, Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816; State v. Ruffin......
-
Section 7.35 Admissibility at Trial
...understanding the facts or the testimony of witnesses, the timetable of events, or any element of the State’s case. In State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993), the defendant offered an hour-long recording of a conversation between a person named Draper and witness Grey to impe......
-
Section 7.49 Portion of Statement Admissible for Impeachment
...that tends to impeach the witness is admissible, but irrelevant and self-serving portions are not admissible. See: · State v. Griffin, 859 S.W.2d 816 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (the trial court properly excluded a one-hour recording offered to impeach a witness when the recording contained irrele......