State v. Harris, 50006

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation717 S.W.2d 233
Docket NumberNo. 50006,50006
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Henry W. HARRIS, Appellant.
Decision Date22 July 1986

Page 233

717 S.W.2d 233
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
Henry W. HARRIS, Appellant.
No. 50006.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division One.
July 22, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, 1986.

Page 234

Lloyd J. Jordan, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Carrie Francke, Jefferson City, for respondent.

SNYDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment convicting appellant Henry Harris of one count of assault in the second degree, § 565.060, RSMo. Cum.Supp.1984, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo.1978. Punishment was assessed at a fine of five thousand dollars for the second degree assault count and three years imprisonment on the armed criminal action count.

Appellant alleges error in the refusal to give instructions on self defense and excusable

Page 235

assault. We find no error and therefore affirm the judgment.

In appellant's first point relied on he contends the trial court erred in failing to submit the issue of self defense to the jury. Rule 30.06(e) requires an appellant who raises points relating to the giving, refusal, or modification of an instruction to set out the instruction in full in the argument portion of his brief. Appellant has failed to do so either in his original or reply brief, and therefore, his points are not preserved for review. State v. Coats, 668 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Mo.App.1984). Review of self defense instruction issues, however, has been granted frequently under the plain error standard. Rule 29.12(b); State v. Robinson, 516 S.W.2d 40, 43 [1, 2] (Mo.App.1974). We will review for manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.

MAI-CR instructions 2.28 on excusable homicide and 2.41, on justifiable use of force in self defense, may be modified for use in assault cases. State v. Hines, 581 S.W.2d 109, 111 [3, 7] (Mo.App.1979). Generally, a defendant has available the same defenses in an assault action as he would in a charge of homicide. State v. Hunter, 560 S.W.2d 48, 50-51 (Mo.App.1977).

If there is substantial evidence putting self defense in issue, it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on self defense whether or not the defendant requests the instruction. State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 430-31 [3, 4] (Mo.App.1978). The evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to defendant's theory of self defense. State v. Ehlers, 685 S.W.2d 942, 946-8 (Mo.App.1985).

Considering the facts in the light most favorable to appellant's self defense argument, there was evidence appellant was chairman of the block cleaning committee in his neighborhood. Eddie Bailey lived in the same block as appellant and received several citations from the City of St. Louis for the poor condition of his property.

On April 29, 1984, when appellant was distributing grass seeds and paint in the neighborhood, Bailey cursed at appellant and threatened him with a screwdriver. In June of 1984 Bailey stated that if the city gave "him any more trouble", Bailey and "his boys" would come after appellant Harris.

Two days before the shooting, appellant's car and truck were vandalized, the damage including slashed tires and seats. There was no evidence that Bailey was responsible for the vandalizing. On the day of the shooting, October 22, 1984, appellant had been at a tire shop paying for repairs required by the vandalization.

On the way home appellant saw Bailey in his front yard with a man named Robert Snider. Appellant stopped his automobile in front of Bailey's house and asked Bailey to leave appellant and appellant's property alone. Bailey began cursing at appellant Harris and told Harris that Harris had not seen anything yet.

Appellant got out of his car, carrying a briefcase, walked about 10 feet, and stood in Bailey's front yard. (Bailey testified, however, that appellant alighted from his automobile with the gun in his hand.) Bailey continued threatening appellant and then threw a metal tire axle or a part of an axle at Harris' head. Appellant Harris blocked the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Riley, 65845-4
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 13 Mayo 1999
    ...assaults involving the use of deadly force where there has been nothing more than threat." Id. at 827, 261 N.W.2d 759); State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Mo.Ct.App.1986) (insulting or inflammatory language is not sufficient provocation to justify an assault against the speaker; language......
  • State v. Meadows, s. 54220
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 23 Enero 1990 set forth in full these proffered instructions in the argument portion of his brief as required by Rule 30.06(e). State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233, 235 (Mo.App.1986). Nor has Appellant included these instructions in the legal file. Thus, we can only speculate as to their content. If, as M......
  • State v. Merritt, 51389
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 14 Julio 1987
    ...or self defense, implies that a defendant acted intentionally for his own protection or the protection of others. State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233, 236 (Mo.App.1986). Thus, to be entitled to an instruction, defendant must have acted voluntarily and intentionally in defense of his brother. Se......
  • Dorsey v. State, 25312.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 29 Agosto 2003
    ...epithets were true. Mere insults are not sufficient provocation to justify an assault or make the speaker the aggressor. State v. Harris, 717 S.W.2d 233 (Mo.App. E.D. 1986). In order to be entitled to self[-]defense, the defendant must not use more force than what appears reasonably necessa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT