State v. Goodman
1973 Mo. LEXIS 891, 496 S.W.2d 850 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense when the evidence presented at trial only supports a finding of guilt for the greater offense or a complete acquittal based on an affirmative defense, with no evidentiary basis for the lesser charge.
Facts:
- Lloyd W. Goodman, his mother, and Leslie Earl Lowther were in Lowther's home.
- Goodman tried to snatch a ceramic plaque from his mother's hands; when she resisted, he smashed another ceramic piece.
- When Lowther told Goodman to leave, Goodman charged Lowther, ramming him into furniture.
- Goodman grabbed a 32-ounce champagne bottle and struck Lowther in the face two or three times.
- Goodman then went to the kitchen, threatening to kill Lowther.
- Lowther fled to a neighbor's house, but Goodman followed him into the yard.
- Goodman struck Lowther twice more, knocking him unconscious.
- Lowther suffered severe injuries, including a fractured nose, multiple lacerations requiring sutures, and two knocked-out teeth.
Procedural Posture:
- Lloyd W. Goodman was charged in a Missouri trial court with assault with intent to do great bodily harm with malice aforethought.
- At trial, Goodman's request for a jury instruction on the lesser offense of assault without malice was denied, but an instruction on self-defense was given.
- The jury found Goodman guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Goodman to 5 years' imprisonment.
- Goodman (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by refusing to give a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault without malice aforethought when the evidence supports either assault with malice aforethought (the State's version) or a complete acquittal by reason of self-defense (the defendant's version)?
Opinions:
Majority - Houser, Commissioner
No, the trial court did not err by refusing to give the instruction on the lesser offense. An instruction on a lesser-included offense is required only when there is an evidentiary basis to support it. In this case, the evidence presented two mutually exclusive scenarios. If the State's evidence was believed, Goodman was guilty of assault with malice aforethought, as malice can be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon (the bottle) and the brutal nature of the attack. If Goodman's evidence was believed—that Lowther was the initial aggressor and Goodman acted only in self-defense—he was not guilty of any crime. Because there was no evidence to support an intermediate finding of an assault committed intentionally but without malice, the jury was properly left with an all-or-nothing choice between the charged offense and acquittal.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that jury instructions must be grounded in the evidence presented at trial. It clarifies that a defendant cannot demand an instruction on a lesser-included offense simply because it is theoretically possible. The decision establishes that where the evidence presents a stark, binary choice between guilt on a greater offense and a complete defense like self-defense, the trial court is not obligated to offer the jury a 'compromise' verdict for which no evidence exists. This prevents jury confusion and ensures verdicts are based on a rational application of law to fact, rather than a desire to find a middle ground.
