State v. Jennings, WD

Decision Date15 November 1994
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
Citation887 S.W.2d 752
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ernest Wayne JENNINGS, Appellant. 48965.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Wayne Jennings appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of involuntary manslaughter, § 565.024, RSMo 1986 1, and armed criminal action, § 571.015. Mr. Jennings was sentenced to seven years imprisonment on the involuntary manslaughter charge and four years imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

On the evening of September 4, 1993, Ernest Wayne Jennings was awakened by the sound of cars drag racing down Main Street in Gillman City. Mr. Jennings went outside and saw that his son, Randy Jennings, was driving one of the cars. Mr. Jennings got into his truck and drove to the intersection of Highway K and Main Street. When he reached Main Street, he went over to his son and told him to go home. Mr. Jennings then drove down the street and pulled up alongside a blue Mustang which was one of the other cars that had been drag racing. Mr. Jennings stepped out of his truck with a loaded .44 Magnum revolver in his hand and approached the driver's side of the Mustang. Jimmie Allen was sitting in the driver's seat of the Mustang. As Mr. Jennings approached the car, he pulled the hammer back on the gun, raised it at Allen, and told Allen to get out of there. At that point, the gun discharged, firing a single shot which hit Jimmie Allen in the forehead, fatally wounding him.

After the shooting, Mr. Jennings fled from the scene and returned home. Mr. Jennings was arrested and charged by amended information with second degree murder and armed criminal action. A jury trial was held in November 1993. The jury found Mr. Jennings guilty of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter and four years imprisonment for armed criminal action, with the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Jennings now appeals.

Mr. Jennings contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. He claims the facts do not support a finding that he acted "recklessly" in causing the death of Jimmie Allen.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court accepts as true all evidence and inferences favorable to the state and disregards all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo. banc 1989). This court does not weigh the evidence or determine the reliability or credibility of witnesses. State v. Middleton, 854 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo.App.1993). Our review is limited to a determination of "whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo. banc 1992).

Section 565.024.1 provides, in pertinent part, that:

1. A person commits the crime of involuntary manslaughter if he:

(1) Recklessly causes the death of another person; ...

Pursuant to § 562.016.4, a person "acts recklessly" or is "reckless" when the person "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, and such disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation."

At trial, Mr. Jennings testified that he had been awakened by cars drag racing down Main Street and that he was angry at the time. He also testified that, after being awakened, he got into his truck and drove down to Main Street in order to stop the drag racing. Mr. Jennings admitted that he took a gun with him when he stepped out of his truck and approached the vehicle in which Jimmie Allen was sitting. He further testified that he raised the gun at Jimmie Allen and pulled back on the gun's hammer. At that point, the gun discharged and a bullet struck Jimmie Allen in the forehead, causing his death.

Mr. Jennings maintains that his convictions cannot be upheld because he did not intend to harm Jimmie Allen, claiming that the gun discharged because of a mechanical defect. At trial, August Nilges, Jr., a forensic examiner, testified that the hammer notch area of the gun was slightly beveled causing the double action mode of firing to be smoother than normal for this particular weapon. However, Nilges also testified that the revolver would not fire while the hammer was pulled back unless pressure was exerted on the trigger of the gun.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence in this case indicates, at the very least, that some degree of pressure must have been exerted on the trigger of the gun in order for it to discharge. Even if Mr. Jennings did not intentionally fire the gun at Jimmie Allen, the jury could have reasonably determined that Mr. Jennings' actions of raising a loaded gun at Jimmie Allen was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have used in such a situation. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 772 S.W.2d 782, 783-84 (Mo.App.1989). The jury could also have determined that Mr. Jennings took a substantial risk that the gun might discharge when he pulled back the hammer into the firing position. Accordingly, the jury could reasonably have found that Mr. Jennings acted recklessly. The evidence was therefore sufficient to establish that Mr. Jennings committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter by recklessly causing the death of Jimmie Allen.

Mr. Jennings further contends that his conviction for involuntary manslaughter cannot support a conviction for armed criminal action. He argues that the legislature did not intend for the armed criminal action statute to apply to situations where a defendant "acts recklessly" and does not intend to harm or cause bodily injury to another person. Identical arguments have been expressly rejected by the courts of this state. See, e.g., State v. Schmidt, 865 S.W.2d 761, 764 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Rowe, 838 S.W.2d 103, 108-09 (Mo.App.1992).

Section 571.015.1 states, in pertinent part, that:

[A]ny person who commits any felony under the laws of this state by, with, or through the use, assistance, or aid of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon is also guilty of the crime of armed criminal action.... 2

Although the armed criminal action statute does not specifically set forth a culpable mental state, it has been previously construed as requiring that the defendant acted "purposely, knowingly, or recklessly." See Rowe, 838 S.W.2d at 109. Similarly, the court of appeals in Schmidt, 865 S.W.2d at 764, held that a defendant may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action if he recklessly causes the death of another person by the use of a gun.

It should be noted, however, that both Rowe and Schmidt relied on language in § 562.021.2 which was deleted when the statute was amended on August 28, 1993. This amendment occurred before Mr. Jennings committed his crime. Subsection 562.021.2 formerly read:

[I]f the definition of an offense does not expressly prescribe a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Franklin v. I.N.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 12, 1996
    ...(same distinction between involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter on the basis of intent); State v. Jennings, 887 S.W.2d 752, 754 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (although involuntary manslaughter lacks any element of intent to cause harm, it may still support conviction for armed criminal act......
  • State v. Kinder
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 21, 2003
    ...541 (Mo.App. W.D. 1993). Moreover, we are to presume a logical result, as opposed to an absurd or unreasonable one. State v. Jennings, 887 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Mo.App. W.D.1994). The statute allowing for post-conviction DNA testing embodies the legislature's balancing of competing interests. Th......
  • State v. Danikas
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 1999
    ...or aid of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon." Section 571.015.1; MAI-CR 3d 332.02 [Revised Oct. 1, 1995]; State v. Jennings, 887 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Mo. App. 1994). "'By definition, armed criminal action incorporates all the elements of the underlying felony.'" Id. (quoting State v. Hern......
  • State v. Harrell, SD 30312.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2011
    ...banc 2004) (a deadly weapon is inherently dangerous, not just dangerous because it is used in a particular way); State v. Jennings, 887 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Mo.App. W.D.1994) (defendant's argument that he did not intend to use a gun to harm the victim did not remove the gun from the classificat......
  • 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