State v. Haygood
| Decision Date | 13 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 52023,No. 2,52023,2 |
| Citation | 411 S.W.2d 230 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Delford HAYGOOD, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Jerome W. Seigfreid, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mexico, for respondent.
J. Whitfield Moody, J. Arnot Hill, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
For the killing of his former wife, Delford Haygood was found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has appealed.
The evidence clearly authorized a finding of murder in the second degree, the defendant does not challenge its sufficiency, and we need not set out in detail the circumstances established by the state's evidence. It is sufficient to say that about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of July 10, 1965, Rose Haygood died from a gunshot wound received from a gun in the hands of defendant after she and defendant had engaged in an argument. Defendant testified in his own behalf, and according to him he went to the home of his former wife shortly after dark on July 9 in response to a call from her. They talked for awhile about the possibility of a reconciliation, but he indicated that they could not be reconciled as long as she 'permitted herself to be badgered or permitted herself to be led by her people instead of living her own life.' He went to sleep at the house and when he awakened it was getting light. He then awakened Rose, and she asked him if he meant what he had said about not wanting to go back together, and he told her that he did. He was putting on his shirt when Rose 'came at (him) with a butcher knife.' She missed striking him on her first attempt, but she then stabbed him in the chest. They started grappling, and he picked up an automatic pistol which was lying on the coffee table. While they were scuffling and he was trying 'to transfer the gun from (his) right hand to his left hand to keep her off' he was stabbed again, and the gun went off and shot into the ceiling. While he was holding her hand in which she held the knife, either he pushed her or she pushed him, and 'she was spun' and the gun went off again. After the gun went off this second time she 'was spinning,' and she then ran to the yard and fell. Defendant went to her, but did not know that she was shot, and helped her back into the house.
Admittedly, the testimony of defendant was inconsistent with some of the circumstances shown by the state's evidence from which an intentional shooting could be inferred.
The court instructed the jury on murder in the second degree, manslaughter, pre-sumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and the credibility of witnesses.
Defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of excusable homicide because of accident. This contention was not set forth as an assignment of error in the motion for new trial, but defendant urges that the failure to so instruct the jury constituted plain error affecting substantial rights within the meaning of Criminal Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R. We shall determine first whether it was error not to so instruct the jury, and if so whether this constituted plain error within the meaning and scope of the rule.
Criminal Rule 26.02(6), V.A.M.R., provides that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renfro v. Swenson
...not request and the jury, on the trial court's own motion (see Missouri Criminal Rule 26.02(6) and State v. Haygood (Sup.Ct.Mo., Div. 2, 1967), 411 S.W.2d 230) was not given any voluntariness instruction. Defense counsel nevertheless argued: "He simply at this point didn't care what happene......
-
State v. Mosley
...to instruct on the issue of excusable homicide. I see no substantial difference between the facts in this case and those in State v. Haygood, Mo.Sup., 411 S.W.2d 230. There defendant and the victim had words concerning a reconciliation. The victim came at defendant with a knife, stabbed him......
-
State v. Seemiller
...instruct on the "law arising in the case" under Rule 26.02, may in particular circumstances constitute prejudicial error, State v. Haygood, 411 S.W.2d 230 (Mo.1967), it does not, of itself, result in "manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice" under Rule 27.20(c). State v. Patterson, 443......
-
State v. Cummings
...S.W.2d 73, 75(4), and State v. Pruett, Mo.Sup., 342 S.W.2d 943, 945(4, 5), so there is no occasion for invocation, under State v. Haygood, Mo.Sup., 411 S.W.2d 230, of the plain error rule (Criminal Rule 27.20(c), Finally, appellant contends that he was not provided counsel at a police line-......