State v. Willett
| Decision Date | 02 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 539 S.W.2d 774 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward Leon WILLETT, Appellant. 27760. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James R. Wyrsch, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Edward Leon Willett was charged with two counts of first degree murder. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter on each count and sentenced him to two years imprisonment on each count. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
On this appeal Willett urges reversal on (1) the unconstitutionality of the provision allowing women to be excused from jury service; (2) in refusing to allow evidence to be admitted concerning the criminal record of the two decedents, Willett's supposed knowledge of their violent reputations and in refusing to give Willett's self-defense instruction; (3) in allowing a detective to testify as to the identity of the two decedents based upon papers found upon them, and in limiting Willett's cross-examination of witnesses who testified as to the identity of the two decedents; (4) in denying Willett a bifurcated trial on the issue of guilt, and once that was established, on the issue of his mental condition; (5) in failing to sustain Willett's motion for acquittal because the State failed to disprove the defense of justifiable homicide; and (6) in ordering the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. Affirmed as to conviction, but remanded for resentencing.
Willett was charged as a result of the killing of Parker and Courtney. The evidence adduced by the State showed that in the early morning hours the police responded to a call at the home of Willett in Kansas City. The first police officer to arrive stated that as he walked on the front porch of the Willett home, Willett pointed to a shotgun leaning against the house and said 'I did it and they are in there'. The officer then asked what he had done and Willett replied, 'I shot them and they are in there'.
On entering the house, the officer found Courtney sitting on a couch in the front room with his legs crossed, and his head lying on his shoulder. There was a large wound in the neck. Parker was lying on the floor with a wound in the left side of the chest. The officer could find no signs of life in either man.
Willett produced, as witnesses, two of the six or seven people who were in the room in addition to the two decedents, and testified on his own behalf. From the testimony of these witnesses, it appears Willett and three or four of his friends were visting various bars in Kansas City. In one of these they encountered Courtney and Parker. Later in the evening Courtney informed Willett he was going home with Willett, and Courtney and Parker then got in Willett's pickup truck and were driven by Willett to his home.
On arriving, the three men entered the home and found the friends with whom Willett had been drinking earlier in the evening. Within about fifteen or twenty minutes an argument broke out between Courtney and one of the other men present. This led to some blows being struck by Parker, but when Willett entered the room, he immediately broke up the fight without any difficulty and both men obeyed willett's command to be seated. After this, the man struck by Parker obtained a chain saw and began trying to start it as he advanced toward Parker. Willett broke this up as he had the previous affray, and likewise without difficulty.
At this juncture, Courtney and Parker began assuring each other that each had brought his gun and made statements to the effect they could take care of the entire crowd. At this point, Willett left and obtained a shotgun. According to Willett, as he entered the room, with the gun pointed toward the ceiling, Parker immediately got out of his chair and started advancing toward Willett. Willett said at the same time as he started advancing, Parker started to move his hands toward his belt. Willett immediately lowered the shotgun and fired one blast which struck Parker in the left chest.
Willett stated after he shot Parker, he saw Courtney move his hands and immediately swung the gun toward Courtney and fired, striking him in the neck. Courtney never rose from the couch and, as stated, still had his legs crossed when seen by the police officer.
One of the other witnesses confirmed Willett's version, but one stated Parker never rose from his chair before he was shot.
The officer conducted a search of the bodies and did not find any weapon either on the bodies or anywhere else in the house. Willett stated he did not see any gun on either Courtney or Parker. He stated Parker was wearing a tight fitting tee shirt and trousers when Willett had observed him throughout the evening. Willett also admitted when Parker reached toward his belt, he did not see any sign of a weapon and did not see anything in Parker's hands. He stated the same concerning Courtney. Willett based his action in shooting both men on the fear that they did have a gun.
Willett first questions the automatic excuse which is granted to women in Missouri from jury service as provided in Article I, Section 22(b), Constitution of 1945, and Section 494.031, RSMo 1969. Willett bases his argument upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) in which a statute somewhat similar to Missouri in Louisiana was struck down.
It is not necessary to decide the validity of the Missouri Constitution and statutes in this case because Willett was tried in November, 1974. Taylor was decided in January, 1975. In Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790 (1975) the Supreme Court held Taylor would not be applied retroactively. Therefore, the status of the Missouri Constitution and statutes concerning women being excused from jury service in effect in November, 1974, controls.
At that time the controlling law in Missouri was State v. Wright, 476 S.W.2d 581 (Mo.1972). In that case the Missouri method of excusing women, which Willett attacks in this case, was upheld. For that reason, the attack here made cannot be considered.
Willett next contends he should have been allowed to show that Courtney and Parker had criminal records and, in fact, were residents of a halfway house under federal probation at the time of their death. He further contends he should have been allowed to introduce testimony on the part of three witnesses concerning their knowledge of the reputation of Courtney and Parker for violence. He further contends he should have been allowed to testify as to a remark made by a bar maid to Parker and Courtney that if they caused trouble she would bar them for good.
Willett concedes the law in this State is against him as to the fact a violent reputation must be established by the reputation the decedents bore in the community and not by evidence of specific acts of violence having no connection with the defendant. This was reaffirmed in State v. Maggitt, 517 S.W.2d 105 (Mo. banc 1974). The evidence which Willett sought to show related to the criminal records of Courtney and Parker as shown by their records at the halfway house where they were last staying. Willett conceded he did not know either Courtney or Parker prior to the evening in question, nor did he have any idea as to their reputation. Under the rule prevailing in Missouri, it would have been improper to permit evidence of the criminal record of Courtney and Parker to be shown. Furthermore, under this rule, the accused must know of the violent reputation. State v. Blair, 305 S.W.2d 435 (Mo.1957). The evidence sought to be introduced went only to the criminal record of the deceased, and at best as to some reputation of violence known to others but without showing knowledge of such reputation on the part of Willett.
Willett sought to establish his knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Wyrick
...of cases in which it appeared that consecutive sentences may have been imposed due to the mandate of Section 546.480. See State v. Willett, 539 S.W.2d 774 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Jordan, 532 S.W.2d 776 (Mo.App.1975); State v. McCollum, 527 S.W.2d 710 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Brown, 525 S.W.2......
-
State v. Curby
...is required to come forward with additional evidence after the defendant has produced evidence of defense of another. State v. Willett, 539 S.W.2d 774 (Mo.App.1976). Rarely will the defense of another be declared as a matter of law and taken from the jury. This would occur as a rule only wh......
-
Dayton v. State, WD 31127.
...existing prior to Taylor, under which the Missouri procedure granting women an automatic option for exclusion was valid. State v. Willett, 539 S.W.2d 774 (Mo.App.1976). A motion to quash the jury panel in this case therefore would have been without merit. Counsel cannot be branded as ineffe......
-
State v. Page
...state is required to come forward with additional evidence after the defendant has produced evidence of self-defense. State v. Willett, 539 S.W.2d 774, 778 (Mo.App.1976). In State v. Curby, 553 S.W.2d 566 at page 568 (Mo.App.1977), we Rarely will the defense of another (self-defense) be dec......