State v. Robinson, 47827

Decision Date26 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 47827,47827
Citation672 S.W.2d 743
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Dorothy Mae Hirzy Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Lynne Green Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

KAROHL, Presiding Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Walter Robinson, Jr., was jury tried and convicted of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1978 and first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMo 1978. Defendant, a prior offender, was sentenced to twenty-five years for assault and ten years for burglary to run concurrently. He appeals only the assault conviction.

Defendant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on second degree assault, 1 a lesser included offense, because there was evidence from which the jury could find that the physical injury sustained from the assault was not a serious physical injury.

We reverse.

The degree of assault committed is determined by the degree of injury to the victim. First degree assault is committed when defendant "knowingly causes serious physical injury to another person." § 565.050.1, RSMo 1978. (emphasis added). Second degree assault is committed when defendant "knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical injury to another ..." § 565.060.1, RSMo 1978.

The legislature has enacted a criminal code definition of serious physical injury. § 556.061.24 RSMo Supp.1982. It is there defined to be "physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body."

It was undisputed that the victim suffered a broken arm, a broken finger and cuts and bruises on his head and face. The statutory definition of serious physical injury is divisible into three categories: risk of death; serious permanent disfigurement; and, protracted loss or impairment of function. There was no evidence that the injury created any risk of death nor of any protracted loss or impairment of function. No expert medical evidence was offered and the victim did not testify about any of impairment of function. Defendant's contention is therefore reduced to whether from the undisputed evidence of injury the jury could find no serious permanent disfigurement. If so defendant-appellant was entitled to the instruction on the lesser included offense.

The trial court is required by § 556.046.2, RSMo 1978 to instruct the jury on lesser degrees of the offense charged and lesser included offenses of the offense charged. State v. Olson, 636 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Mo. banc 1982). Section 556.046.2 limits the requirement for instructing down to those instances where there is some affirmative evidence of a lack of essential element of the higher offense which would not only authorize acquittal of the higher but sustain a conviction of the lesser. Olson at 322. It is error for the trial court to fail to instruct on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence. State v. Flemming, 528 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1975).

There was evidence of disfigurement, since the victim showed the jury his crooked finger, however, it was for the jury to determine whether this constituted serious permanent disfigurement. Mere disfigurement alone does not invoke § 565.050.1.

We find on the evidence that the jury, if fully instructed, may have found defendant not guilty of the crime charged but guilty of assault second degree. Defendant-appellant was therefore entitled to the requested instruction. See, State v. Olson, 636 S.W.2d 318 (Mo....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Merchant, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 1990
    ...all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence is error. State v. Westfall, 710 S.W.2d 408, 409 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Robinson, 672 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Mo.App.1984). However, the court is not "obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a basis fo......
  • State v. Williams, 47781
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1986
    ...must be sufficient to authorize acquittal on the greater offense while sustaining a conviction on the lesser offense. State v. Robinson, 672 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Mo.App.1984). The trial court errs if it does not instruct on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence. State v. Smith,......
  • State v. Dailey
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 1989
    ...was considered in and answered affirmatively in Taylor and Dorsey and has been reasserted in other decisions. See State v. Robinson, 672 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Mo.App.1984). Further, when the Missouri General Assembly makes such a designation by legislative enactment, all "constitutional requirem......
  • State v. Westfall, 50134
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1986
    ...him of the offense charged. Defendant was therefore entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense. State v. Robinson, 672 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Mo.App.1984). As his second point on appeal appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. From t......

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