State v. Straughter

• Decision Date: 27 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. ED108390,ED108390
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ANDREA SHAUNTE STRAUGHTER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. ANDREA SHAUNTE STRAUGHTER, Appellant.

No. ED108390

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE

April 27, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis

Honorable Bryan L. Hettenbach

Introduction

Andrea Shaunte Straughter ("Straughter") appeals from the judgment following her jury-trial convictions on two counts each of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Straughter raises three points on appeal. The first two points allege the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to Straughter's questioning during voir dire regarding the Castle Doctrine and rejecting Straughter's proposed Castle-Doctrine jury instruction because Straughter was assaulted by the Victim through the open window of her car before Straughter shot Victim. Point Three contends the trial court plainly erred in overruling Straughter's objection to the State's inquiry into Straughter's social media video postings because the State failed to disclose the evidence before trial. Although the legislature expanded the statutory protections of the Castle Doctrine to encompass uninvited entry into vehicles, the record contains no substantial evidence supporting the application of the Castle-Doctrine instruction because Victim did not attempt to unlawfully enter Straughter's car. We therefore deny Points One and Two. Because the State's questioning relating to Straughter's video postings did not result in manifest injustice, the trial court committed no plain error in allowing the questioning, and we deny Point Three. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Factual and Procedural History

This case arises out of a domestic dispute in May 2018 between Victim and Victim's ex-boyfriend, Nicholas Ward ("Ward"). Straughter was friends with Ward and drove Ward to Victim's home. When they arrived, Ward exited the car, removed his shirt, and became loud and aggressive. Victim came out of the home carrying a gun, because she thought Ward also had a gun. Victim gave the gun to her sister ("Sister") and told her to put it in the trunk of the car. Ward and Victim argued. Victim asked Straughter why she would bring Ward over, and Straughter replied, "B-----, I don't have to explain nothing to you." Victim then punched Straughter in the face "as hard as [she] possibly could" through the open window where Straughter sat in the driver's seat of her car. The witnesses provided conflicting testimony whether Victim punched Straughter with a closed fist or slapped her. Victim did not attempt to enter the car. Straughter testified that Victim did not try to open the car door, did not attempt to reach in and grab her, did not reach in and pull on the inside handle, did not try to unlock the door, and did not claw at the door or at Straughter in an effort to gain access into the car. After striking Straughter, Victim stepped back one-to-three feet from the car and made no further movements toward the car. Straughter then retrieved a pistol and shot Victim twice and Sister once.

Straughter left the scene of the incident but later went to the police station and provided a statement. The State charged Straughter with two counts each of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. The case proceeded to trial.

During voir dire, Straughter questioned the venire panel on the topic of self-defense. Specifically, Straughter asked the venire panel if anyone had any reason for not believing the law permits persons to use deadly force to defend themselves. Straughter explained that Missouri law allows a person to use deadly force to defend himself from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force against him. Straughter then began to inform the jury of the Castle Doctrine under Missouri law, and the State objected. Straughter argued that Missouri law codified the Castle Doctrine, which allows the use of deadly force in circumstances beyond that provided under the limitations of self-defense. More specifically, Straughter explained to the trial court that she intended to introduce evidence supporting the application of the Castle Doctrine, which allows the use deadly force in response to normal force when inside a vehicle. Straughter said the testimony would show that Victim's arm entered her car and struck Straughter in the face. The State countered that the Castle Doctrine did not apply to the facts in the case. The trial court sustained the State's objection and precluded any discussion of the Castle Doctrine during voir dire. The trial court noted it found no prejudice precluding Straughter from introducing the Castle Doctrine during voir dire because Straughter already had presented the issue of self-defense during voir dire.

Straughter testified in her own defense. On cross-examination, the State asked Straughter whether she had posted any Facebook Live videos prior to the trial. Straughter objected to this kind of questioning based on relevance. The trial court overruled the objection. Straughter answered that she did stream videos live on Facebook but denied discussing the trial. Straughter then initiated a bench conference in which she noted that the State had not disclosed to her during discovery any video postings. The State countered that it first learned about the existence of the videos at the same time as defense counsel, and that the videos discussed the people,including the victims, coming to court for trial. When asked for the basis for her objection to the video postings, Straughter stated the video postings were not relevant and were more prejudicial than probative. Noting that Straughter had publicly posted the videos, the trial court overruled the objection. When the State continued its line of questioning, Straughter testified she posted the videos to encourage people to come to court to support her. Straughter denied posting that Victim's and Sister's appearance at court made her feel strong. On redirect examination, Straughter stated again that she posted the videos to ask people to come support her at court. Straughter testified that the State never turned over the posted videos to review with her attorney. Straughter did not raise the discovery issue relating to the State's non-production of the video postings in her motion for new trial.

During the jury instruction conference, the trial court stated it intended to give Straughter's proffered Instruction No. 15, a self-defense instruction patterned after Missouri Approved Instructions-Criminal 4th 406.06.¹ Instruction No. 15 provided in the relevant parts:

In order for a person lawfully to use physical force in self-defense, he must reasonably believe such physical force is necessary to defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force and he can only use physical force to the extent that he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself.

But a person is not permitted to use deadly force unless he reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious physical injury.

A person is not required to retreat before resorting to the use of physical force to defend himself if he is lawfully remaining in a vehicle. The [S]tate has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense.

In addition to the self-defense Instruction No. 15, Straughter requested the trial court give the self-defense instruction based on the Castle Doctrine patterned after MAI-CR 4th 406.10 (the"Castle-Doctrine Instruction"). Straughter reasoned she was entitled to have the jury instructed on the Castle Doctrine because the evidence showed Victim used unlawful force against Straughter while Straughter was sitting in the driver's seat of her car. The Castle-Doctrine Instruction specified, in relevant part, that:

A person who is lawfully occupying a vehicle may use physical force, including deadly force, to defend himself against another person who enters unlawfully if he reasonably believes the use of some physical force is necessary to defend himself from what he reasonably believes is the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force.

. . . .

As used in this instruction, a person "unlawfully enters" a vehicle when he enters such vehicle and is not licensed or privileged to do so.

Straughter maintained the evidence admitted at trial established Victim's entry into her car, which constituted an unlawful force used against Straughter. The State objected that the evidence of Victim's conduct did not support Straughter's request for the Castle-Doctrine Instruction. The trial court rejected the proposed Castle-Doctrine Instruction.

The jury found Straughter guilty on both counts of assault in the first-degree and the two associated counts of armed criminal action. The sentencing court imposed the jury-recommended sentences of ten years on the first count of first-degree assault, five years on the second count of first-degree assault, and three years on each count of the associated counts of armed criminal action, with all sentences to be served concurrently. Straughter now appeals.

Points on Appeal

Straughter raises three points on appeal. Straughter's first two points both involve the application of the Castle Doctrine. Point One argues the trial court abused its discretion when precluding Straughter from questioning the venire panel about the Castle Doctrine because it was relevant to whether Straughter was entitled to the use of deadly force after being assaulted byVictim while in her car. Point Two asserts the trial court erred in rejecting Straughter's requested Castle-Doctrine Instruction because the evidence of Victim's assault on Straughter while Straughter was seated inside her car entitled her to the instruction. Point Three alleges the trial court plainly erred in overruling her objection to the State's inquiry into Straughter's video postings because the State...