State v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 15 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 35010,35010 |
| Citation | 527 S.W.2d 380 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald McDONALD, Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Crouppen, Walther & Zwibelman, Roy A. Walther, III, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Neil McFarlane, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., John D. Chancellor, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of assault with intent to kill without malice aforethought. A jury fixed defendant's sentence at six months in the St. Louis Medium Security Institution. Section 559.190, RSMo. 1969.
The facts can be briefly stated. Late in the evening of November 3, 1971, defendant and a companion arrived at a combination tavern and pool hall in St. Louis. Defendant attempted to 'challenge' Thomas Karcher, who was playing pool, by placing a quarter on the edge of the pool table. automobile, got his companion's .22 and an argument ensued between defendant and Karcher, during which Karcher threatened defendant with bodily harm. Defendant then went outside to his companion's automobile, got his companion's 22 caliber target pistol from the automobile trunk, stuck it under his belt, and returned to the tavern.
The testimony differed on what subsequently happened. There was a scuffle between defendant and Karcher, and defendant shot Karcher twice with the pistol. Some witnesses testified that defendant shot Karcher only after Karcher had attacked defendant with his fists and a bar stool. Other witnesses said defendant approached Karcher and shot him before the fight began.
During the fight defendant dropped the pistol. The defendant's companion then picked up the gun, ran outside, and fired several shots into the tavern through a window. Defendant and his companion then left. Later defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in rejecting his offer to prove that the victim had been in other fights with third parties and that defendant was aware of these fights. Defendant urges that the excluded evidence was relevant to his defense of self-defense, a key element of which is whether defendant had a reasonable belief that his life or personal safety was immediately threatened by the victim.
The trial judge properly excluded evidence that the victim had been in other fights and that the defendant was aware of these fights.
For nearly one hundred years the Missouri rule has been that where the defense is self-defense evidence is admissible to show that the victim had the reputation of being of a violent and turbulent disposition or character. But this evidence must be shown by testimony concerning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pride
...or personal safety was immediately threatened and was therefore entitled to an instruction on self-defense. E. g., State v. McDonald, 527 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo.App.1975). We disagree and find that appellant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense as a matter of If there is any subs......
-
State v. Ivicsics
...of violence directed toward others does not change this rule, State v. Maggitt, 517 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. McDonald, 527 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo.App.1975); nor would this rule be altered by the fact that the specific acts of violence were directed against immediate members of......
-
State v. Ball
...than the appellant. State v. Maggitt, 517 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. banc 1974); State v. Nelson, 484 S.W.2d 306, 308 (Mo.1972); State v. McDonald, 527 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.1975). We are simply unable to discern any proper usage of this argument which would have benefited the appellant, and we hold that......
-
State v. Bell, 44351
...He alleges the questions merely sought to adduce that victim had the reputation of being of a turbulent propensity. State v. McDonald, 527 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo.App.1975). After the objection was sustained, defendant's trial lawyer made no offer of proof, nor did he ask any other questions in......