State v. Avery
120 S.W.3d 196, 2003 Mo. LEXIS 155, 3 A.L.R. 6th 809 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on defenses, including self-defense, defense of premises, and voluntary manslaughter, even if those defenses are inconsistent with the defendant's trial testimony, so long as the State introduces substantial evidence, such as prior inconsistent statements, that supports those defenses.
Facts:
- In October 2000, Jamie Avery began an intimate relationship with and moved into John Hamilton's house. That same month, she had a sexual encounter with Bruce Paris.
- Mr. Paris later canceled plans to go to Chicago with Ms. Avery, upsetting her, and then moved to Chicago, returning to Missouri on December 4, 2000, after making numerous harassing phone calls to Ms. Avery and Mr. Hamilton.
- On the afternoon of December 6, 2000, Ms. Avery met Mr. Paris, and while they were driving and drinking, Mr. Paris grabbed her breast and covered her mouth, causing her to bite him.
- That evening, Ms. Avery and Mr. Paris went to her home, where Ms. Avery asked Mr. Paris to leave, but he refused until she retrieved Mr. Hamilton's revolver, after which Mr. Paris left on foot.
- Approximately twenty minutes later, Ms. Avery walked her dog, taking the revolver for protection due to a past gang-rape experience. She heard noises, ran inside, and pointed the revolver at the door.
- Mr. Paris entered the doorway, threatened to beat Ms. Avery if she didn't drop the gun, and quickly moved towards her, attempting to grab the revolver, leading Ms. Avery to step back and shoot him.
- Immediately after the shooting, Ms. Avery locked herself in her bedroom, called the sheriff's department stating she had shot an 'intruder,' and told Mr. Hamilton she was scared, that Mr. Paris was going to hurt her, and that he 'came at me and I shot him.'
- During subsequent police interviews, Ms. Avery provided differing accounts, some describing the shooting as accidental during a struggle, and others suggesting she shot him in self-defense when he moved towards her and tried to grab the gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Jamie Avery was charged in the trial court with second-degree murder and armed criminal action.
- The trial court refused Ms. Avery's request to instruct the jury on self-defense, defense of premises, and voluntary manslaughter.
- A jury in the trial court convicted Ms. Avery of second-degree murder and armed criminal action.
- The trial court sentenced Ms. Avery to two consecutive terms of thirty years imprisonment.
- Ms. Avery appealed her convictions to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, asserting error in the trial court's refusal to submit the requested jury instructions.
- The Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer of the case following the Missouri Court of Appeals' opinion, pursuant to Mo. Const art. V, sec. 10.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, defense of premises, and voluntary manslaughter, even though Ms. Avery testified the shooting was accidental, when the State introduced her prior statements to police and her boyfriend that supported these intentional defenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Laura Denvir Stith
Yes, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, defense of premises, and voluntary manslaughter. A self-defense instruction must be submitted when substantial evidence supports it, even if that evidence is inconsistent with the defendant’s trial testimony, particularly when the State itself introduces the inconsistent evidence. The State introduced Ms. Avery’s prior inconsistent statements to the police and her boyfriend that suggested the shooting was intentional but done in self-defense, defense of premises, or arose from sudden passion. These statements included her assertions that she was scared, Mr. Paris threatened her and came at her, and that she shot an intruder. The evidence was sufficient to inject these issues into the case for the jury to consider. For defense of premises, Mr. Paris's re-entry, threats, and attempt to grab the gun, combined with prior events, supported an inference of attempted burglary (unlawful entry to commit assault). For voluntary manslaughter, the cumulative effect of Mr. Paris’s harassment, the sexual assault earlier that evening, his threats, and physical approach immediately before the shooting was minimally sufficient to establish sudden passion arising from adequate cause. The jury, as the fact-finder, is entitled to consider all evidence and make its own credibility determination, and therefore should have been given instructions on these defenses.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the principle that a defendant is entitled to jury instructions on all defenses supported by substantial evidence, even if those defenses are inconsistent with the defendant's trial testimony, especially when the State itself introduces the contradictory evidence. It reinforces the notion that the prosecution cannot selectively use a defendant's prior statements to demonstrate intent without also allowing the jury to consider the exculpatory or mitigating aspects of those same statements. The ruling underscores the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of credibility and ensures that defendants are afforded a full opportunity to present all legally available defenses, preventing a trial court from preempting the jury's fact-finding function on conflicting evidence. This decision could impact future cases by requiring trial courts to be more inclusive in submitting defense instructions, particularly when the State's own evidence creates an evidentiary basis for inconsistent theories.
