State v. Hernandez

• Decision Date: 26 July 1991
• Docket Number: Nos. 16477,17052,s. 16477
• Citation: 815 S.W.2d 67
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pedro M. HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Pedro M. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 67

815 S.W.2d 67

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pedro M. HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Pedro M. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent.

Nos. 16477, 17052.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Southern District,

Division Two.

July 26, 1991.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer

Denied Aug. 16, 1991.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 16, 1991.

Melinda K. Pendergraph, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Pedro M. Hernandez (defendant) guilty of involuntary manslaughter and recommended punishment of imprisonment for a term of seven years. § 565.024.1(2). ¹ The jury also found defendant guilty of the offense of armed criminal action and recommended that he be sentenced to life imprisonment for that offense. § 571.015. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the recommendations of the jury. Following sentencing, defendant filed a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. It was overruled without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appeals the convictions in the criminal case and the order overruling his Rule 29.15 motion. The appeals were consolidated as required by Rule 29.15(l ).

For the reasons that follow this court reverses the judgments of conviction for involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action and remands the case for new trial for the offense of involuntary manslaughter only. The appeal of the order dismissing the Rule 29.15 motion is dismissed.

The state first charged defendant with involuntary manslaughter. The state later amended the information by adding the charge of armed criminal action.

The evidence favorable to the verdicts is as follows. On September 12, 1988, Cecil Barrymore was killed as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Barrymore's employer, Robert Butcher, and the employer's son, Kevin Butcher, were also injured in the accident. Robert Butcher was driving a truck in which his son, Kevin, and Barrymore were passengers. The truck was traveling in a southerly direction on Highway 123 in Polk County when it was struck by a van that was traveling in the opposite direction on the same highway. The van was operated by defendant. When Robert Butcher first saw the van it was coming around a curve, sliding into the wrong lane of travel. Two of the van's wheels were off the ground. Butcher applied his brakes and pulled his truck as far to his right as possible. The van returned to its proper lane then came back into Butcher's lane of traffic and collided with Butcher's truck. The truck was knocked into the ditch that ran alongside the roadway and the van overturned in an adjacent field. Defendant was thrown from the van.

Other persons arrived at the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred. They included Sherry Howard, an employee of the Citizens Memorial Hospital Ambulance Service; George Janzekovich, a 17-year veteran of the Highway Patrol; and Dr. Bill Matthews, a physician from a nearby town.

Sherry Howard attended to defendant. She asked defendant if he had been drinking. Defendant replied that he had drunk "a 12-pack and some whiskey." Ms. Howard described defendant's conduct as erratic--"At times he would be very cooperative, and then within a few minutes he would be very combative and try to resist treatment."

Trooper Janzekovich described his observations of defendant at the scene of the accident. He stated that defendant's "speech was also slurred and his tongue was thick." In Trooper Janzekovich's opinion, defendant was intoxicated.

Dr. Matthews examined Cecil Barrymore at the scene and pronounced him dead. Dr. Matthews testified that Cecil Barrymore died as a result of injuries sustained from the accident.

The van operated by the defendant was registered to him and the insurance certificates for the vehicle were issued to him. The sun visor from the interior of the van was received in evidence over defendant's objection, as was a sign that had been attached to the back window of defendant's van. There were stickers and pins attached to the visor. The stickers, pins, and the sign had various slogans printed on them, including:

"The more I drink, the better you look";

"Reality is for those who can't stay drunk";

"Member beer drinkers hall of fame";

"I only drink to make other people more interesting";

"A woman drove me to drink. Now I can't thank her enough";

"I never drink before five ... it's too early in the morning!";

"Suds sucker";

"Hell on wheels";

"All American drinking team"; and

"I love older whiskey and younger women."

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the signs, stickers, and pins with the statements containing "drinking slogans." Defendant contends that those items were irrelevant to the criminal charges against him. He argues that the drinking slogans that were admitted in evidence were used to try to show him to be the "type" person who would commit the crime in question.

In order for evidence to be relevant, it must logically tend to support or establish a fact or issue between the parties. State v. Moore, 435 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Mo. banc 1968). The elements of the offense of involuntary manslaughter that were required to be proven were: (1) that defendant drove in an intoxicated state; (2) that defendant acted with criminal negligence; and (3) that, in so doing, defendant caused Cecil Barrymore's death. § 565.024.1(2). State v. Dagley, 793 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Mo.App.1990); State v. Lewis, 735 S.W.2d 183, 185 (Mo.App.1987). Thus, the issue on appeal is whether evidence of the drinking slogans logically tended to support or establish any one or more of those elements.

Criminal negligence refers to the degree of culpability of the defendant's mental state, § 562.016.5. ² It is the least culpable of the defined mental states. Criminal negligence is conduct which amounts to a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. State v. Lewis, supra, at 186.

The state argues that the drinking slogans are relevant because the remarks show that the defendant "knew that drinking large amounts of alcohol could distort his sense of reality and his driving skills." That argument fails because the defendant's knowledge of the effect of alcohol on him was not an issue. It was not something that the state had the burden to prove in order to show criminal negligence. The essence of motor vehicular manslaughter--the factor that distinguishes it from other types of homicides--is the defendant's lack of awareness of the risk to others from his conduct. Reed v. U.S., 584 A.2d 585, 588 (D.C.App.1990). The state did not have to prove that the defendant knew of the effects of alcohol upon him.

Evidence is irrelevant if it does not logically tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue or to corroborate evidence which itself is relevant and bears on the principal issue. State v. Taylor, 739 S.W.2d 220, 223 (Mo.App.1987). The drinking slogans were not relevant to the issue of whether defendant acted with criminal negligence.

The state also argues that the drinking slogans were relevant because "they tended to prove that [defendant] did not accidentally or mistakenly drink alcohol, in that his display of such items indicated that [he] approved of excessive drinking." That is another way of saying that because defendant approves of excessive drinking, he is a bad person--he is a person of poor character. Reputation or character testimony is admissible only when a defendant has put his own reputation in issue. State v. Miner, 703 S.W.2d 73, 75 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Milligan, 654 S.W.2d 204, 208 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Thurman, 521 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App.1975). In this case, defendant's reputation was not in issue. The trial court erred in admitting evidence of the drinking slogans.

The remaining question is whether the admission of the drinking slogans into evidence was prejudicial. In considering that question, it is necessary to consider how the prosecuting attorney used that evidence. In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecuting attorney made the following statements:

So I think to a large extent this jury ... is going to set a maximum of what you feel a DWI that killed somebody is worth based on the facts that you've got. The more I drink, the better. What's a person display in their lives? You probably all have trophies hanging on your walls, wall trophies maybe, some of you ladies may quilt and be real proud of that. My grandma used to do that. What does a person display? They display the things they're proud of. What was Pedro Hernandez proud of? The more he drinks, the better he looked. The more he drinks the better Cecil Barrymore looked. Did you read the pins as they came by? "All-American drinking team." What are the things Pedro Hernandez is proud of, folks? "I love older whiskey and younger woman." [sic] I really don't--"I don't really drink, but sometimes I gargle whiskey and it slips." "Reality," and this is the catcher, "is for those who can't stay drunk."

. . . . .

Again, what is a person--what--What does someone display? They display the things they're proud of--pictures of your children, pictures of your granddaughter. I have some of my daughter's little color drawings from preschool up in my office of the courthouse in my office. They're right there with my diplomas. Those are important to me. What's important to you? What do you have hanging on your walls at home? What do you have? Do you have a bumper sticker? "Baby on Board" maybe. Or does yours say, "The more I drink, the better you look"? Do you have a pin that says, "Hell on wheels," "Suds sucker," "I never drink before five. It's too early in the morning." "A woman drove me to drink. Now I can't thank her enough." "I only drink to make other people more interesting." "Member, beer drinkers'...