State v. Hill

Decision Date16 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 11830,11830
Citation614 S.W.2d 744
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jesse Junior HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

David Robards, Stephen P. Carlton, Joplin, for defendant-appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

MAUS, Chief Judge.

The defendant was charged with capital murder. He was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years as assessed by the jury. He presents eight points on appeal.

The scene of the episode was the house of Fred Pulley at 427 Schifferdecker in Joplin. At the time in question, according to one resident, five men and three women were living in the house, including Frank Haynes. Apparently, the defendant had been there for a week or so. Haynes, the defendant, and at least one other spent the night of May 18 and the morning of May 19, 1979, drinking. About 9:00 a. m. a neighbor arrived and spent 30 to 40 minutes in the company of Pulley, Haynes and the defendant. The neighbor was of the opinion they were all drunk. Haynes and the defendant were quarreling, with Haynes agitating the defendant. The neighbor left the house to join Pulley in the front yard where Pulley was visiting with his daughter who had driven in the driveway.

In a few minutes Haynes and the defendant came out of the front door swinging at each other. The defendant told an investigating officer "that he had struck Mr. Haynes in the face and the mouth area and had knocked him out of the residence and off of the front porch where he landed in the front yard". In this connection, Haynes was 5 feet 8 or 9 inches tall and weighed 150 pounds and the defendant was 6 feet tall and weighed 200 pounds. Haynes came to rest in the front yard in such a position the neighbor could not see him because of a truck parked in the driveway. However, the neighbor said that from seeing the defendant from the waist up, it appeared as if the defendant was kicking Haynes. To another officer the defendant said he knocked Haynes through the front door and then kicked him several times.

When the neighbor and Pulley came around the truck, Haynes was on the ground unconscious, bleeding from the mouth and nose. They tried to talk to Haynes, but "he was knocked out." Pulley went in the house, got a bucket of water and poured it on Haynes' head. This caused Haynes to move or stir around. Out of caution, the neighbor went home from where he saw the police and ambulance arrive in about 30 to 40 minutes.

There was no direct evidence concerning the cause of the violence. The neighbor related that the defendant had told Haynes to shut up a time or two, the latter time waving his fist. There was evidence the trouble between the two was over an old incident and over one of the female residents. The defendant told the officers Haynes had threatened him and Pulley with a butcher knife. The police found a steak knife in Haynes back pocket. However, the defendant also said "he had got even for the incident that happened in the past."

As the defendant vigorously questions the cause of Haynes subsequent death, the evidence concerning his condition must be stated in detail. There was little evidence concerning his condition before the violence. Haynes had a reputation as an alcohol and drug abuser and for violence. Another of the residents of the house related that at an undetermined time before May 19, 1979, Haynes was forced from a car and "mauled" around some by several men. However, the resident said that after that Haynes had no trouble in drinking and having a good time.

The first officer to arrive, who had been trained as an emergency medical technician, found Haynes lying in the yard semiconscious with Pulley and the defendant standing beside him. On his first examination the officer found Haynes to be unresponsive but that his pupils were equal and responsive. He checked against 15 to 20 minutes later. At that time one pupil was extremely pinpointed and the other almost completely dilated. Haynes was having trouble breathing. The officer concluded that Haynes had damage to his central nervous system.

Upon examination at the hospital, Haynes was in a deep coma and unresponsive. He had an abrasion on the left jaw and abrasions on the chest and legs. There was a laceration at the base of the nose which was sutured. His blood alcohol was .42%. His treating physician stated the coma resulted from a head injury and not from alcohol. Haynes' pupils were dilated and fixed. His condition was regarded as life threatening. It was determined that he had a massive acute left frontal temporal parietal subdural hematoma. A craniotomy was performed and the subdural hematoma removed. The hematoma was observed to cover almost the entire left hemisphere of the brain. On May 24, 1979, a tracheotomy was performed. Haynes was a patient until June 11, 1979. He remained in a coma, unresponsive and a quadriplegic.

On June 11, 1979, Haynes was admitted to the Missouri State Chest Hospital. There is little evidence concerning his course at that institution. The nurses notes of September 9, 1979, included "fairly good lunch, attempted to talk with family, speech is still garbled and incoherent at times, much more alert". The custodian of the records deciphered the physician's illegible notes to include, September 17, 1979, "Eating well, start talking, few words and something improved"; and on October 1, 1979, "Start talking some, might transfer him to rehabilitation center."

On October 5, 1979, Haynes was transferred to a skilled nursing facility. He was comatose, quadriplegic, had irregular eye movement and hydrostatic congestion. He had assumed the fetal position. He had an ankle clonus of the right ankle, which demonstrated very severe brain damage. Haynes died October 8, 1979.

The treating physician who removed the hematoma in response to a hypothetical question embodying the violence and Haynes subsequent condition gave his opinion that it was possible the hematoma was caused by trauma, possibly the blow that produced the laceration at the base of Haynes' nose. Later he concurred in an opinion that the subdural hematoma caused Haynes' death. He related that a subdural hematoma can develop spontaneously but that alcohol does not cause such a hematoma or make an individual more susceptible to such a hematoma. He testified that the rupture of a vein in the brain can have a delayed effect, as long as four days. But, he added, during the development of a hematoma the individual's sensorium decreases. He observed that if, before the violence, Haynes was able to badger or agitate the defendant, Haynes sensorium was not diminished. On cross-examination this physician made the following statements which form the principal basis for the defendant's argument on causation: If Haynes came out of the coma, that would be a significant fact; if Haynes regained consciousness completely, he might re-evaluate his opinion concerning the cause of death; if Haynes was able to talk, it would have been helpful to gather further information concerning his condition immediately before and after death.

The physician who attended Haynes at the time of his death stated that the death resulted from coma from a subdural hematoma. He stated that trauma is the leading cause of a subdural hematoma and that in his opinion Haynes' subdural hematoma had to be caused by a very severe blow. He further related that a subdural hematoma can be caused by a blow with no visible exterior mark and can be located adjacent to the blow, opposite the blow or obliquely from the blow. He too stated that a rupture or vein in the brain can go unnoticed for a long period of time, but when it is severe, it does not go unnoticed because "usually they may be comatose, they may have a headache, may have dizziness and may have an anesthesia on one hand they may be quadripledic as this patient was". This physician also denied a relationship between alcohol or drug abuse and a subdural hematoma.

The defendant's first point is that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the death of Haynes. He emphasizes the prior mauling of Haynes, the minor nature of the laceration under the nose and abrasions on the jaw, and the absence of external evidence of injury over the site of the hematoma. He particularly emphasizes the answers of the treating physician concerning the record evidence that Haynes regained consciousness and was able to speak.

To establish that an act of the defendant caused the death of Haynes, the evidence need not exclude all other possibilities. State v. Frazier, 339 Mo. 966, 98 S.W.2d 707 (1936) and Holtkamp v. State, 588 S.W.2d 183 (Mo.App.1979). That causal connection can be established by competent medical testimony that it was so caused, State v. Frazier, supra, or that it could have been so caused when such an opinion is supported by corroborating evidence. "Although admitting that such a hemorrhage could happen to any person without prior trauma, he testified in answer to a hypothetical question that he thought the history of the fight and being struck could have brought on the problem which resulted in death. From such evidence, the trier of facts could infer causation and responsible agency." In re In Interest of T______ G , 455 S.W.2d 3, 10 (Mo.App.1970). Also see State v. Johnson, 475 S.W.2d 95 (Mo.1971); State v. Sykes, 436 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.1969); State v. Sykes, 372 S.W.2d 24 (Mo.1963); Holtkamp v. State, supra. The attending physician testified without objection and without equivocation that the cause of Haynes' death was coma due to subdural hematoma. He added that the subdural hematoma had to be the result of a severe blow. The treating physician in response to a hypothetical question testified that the hematoma was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • State v. Gilpin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1997
    ...the issue of the victim's reputation for violence, he also raises his own. State v. Schlup, 785 S.W.2d 796 (Mo.App.1990); State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Page, 577 S.W.2d 177 Appellant's trial counsel testified that he weighed the benefit of having the witnesses in que......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1984
    ...in rejecting the court's proposals. The fact that the defendant sought no relief other than a mistrial cannot aid him. State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744, 752 (Mo.App.1981). See State v. Crawford, 619 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Mo.1981); State v. Williams, 660 S.W.2d 360, 361 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Jacks......
  • Commonwealth v. Morales
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 7, 2013
    ...defendant's reputation for violence and turbulence where defendant elicited testimony of same as to victim). Accord State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744, 752 (Mo.Ct.App.1981). See also People v. Blanco, 10 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1173, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 176 (1992) (upholding constitutionality of California......
  • State v. Price, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1990
    ...testimony. The remarks were not emphasized by the prosecution. State v. Crawford, 619 S.W.2d 735, 740 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744, 752 (Mo.App.1981). In the incident of inadmissible testimony during cross-examination, the defendant's counsel pursued a matter which elicited ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • §404 Character Evidence, Crimes, or Other Acts
    • United States
    • Evidence Restated Deskbook Chapter 4 Relevancy and Its Limits
    • Invalid date
    ...reputation testimony that the victim had a bad reputation for being quarrelsome, violent, and turbulent. See also: · State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744, 752 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) (no error in "admitting evidence that the defendant had a reputation for being aggressive and a heavy drinker" because......
  • Section 13.26 Insufficiency of Evidence
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 13 Motions to Dismiss
    • Invalid date
    ...See State v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220 (1884), aff’g, 12 Mo. App. 361 (E.D. 1882); State v. Selle, 367 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. 1963); State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981). But the grand jury is the judge of the sufficiency of the evidence it hears. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744. An indictment may be b......

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