State v. Hernandez
815 S.W.2d 67, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's character or beliefs, such as slogans promoting drinking, is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove the mental state of criminal negligence. The admission of such evidence, particularly when used by the prosecution to argue the defendant is a 'bad person,' constitutes prejudicial error requiring reversal.
Facts:
- Pedro M. Hernandez was operating a van on Highway 123 in Polk County.
- Hernandez's van came around a curve, slid into the oncoming lane, corrected, and then swerved back into the oncoming lane, colliding with a truck driven by Robert Butcher.
- The collision resulted in the death of Cecil Barrymore, a passenger in Butcher's truck.
- Following the accident, Hernandez admitted to an EMT that he had consumed 'a 12-pack and some whiskey.'
- A highway patrol trooper at the scene observed that Hernandez's speech was slurred and opined that he was intoxicated.
- A search of Hernandez's van revealed a sun visor and a sign with various stickers, pins, and slogans related to drinking, such as 'Reality is for those who can’t stay drunk' and 'All American drinking team'.
Procedural Posture:
- The state charged Pedro M. Hernandez with involuntary manslaughter.
- The state later amended the information to add a charge of armed criminal action.
- At a trial in the circuit court, a jury found Hernandez guilty of both involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.
- The trial court sentenced Hernandez to seven years for manslaughter and life imprisonment for armed criminal action, in accordance with the jury's recommendation.
- Hernandez filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the trial court overruled without a hearing.
- Hernandez appealed his convictions and the order overruling his motion to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
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 the admission of 'drinking slogans' found in a defendant's vehicle constitute reversible error when used to prove the defendant's criminal negligence in an involuntary manslaughter case?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the admission of the 'drinking slogans' constitutes reversible error. This evidence was irrelevant to proving any element of involuntary manslaughter and served only as improper character evidence. The crime required the state to prove criminal negligence, which involves a failure to be aware of a substantial risk. The slogans do not logically prove the defendant's mental state or lack of awareness at the time of the incident; instead, they were used to portray him as a person of bad character who approves of excessive drinking. Character evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant first puts their character at issue, which did not happen here. The error was prejudicial because the prosecutor extensively referenced the slogans in closing arguments, urging the jury to punish Hernandez for his beliefs about drinking, which likely contributed to the verdict. Additionally, the conviction for armed criminal action must be reversed because the underlying felony, involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence, does not satisfy the required mental state of purposely, knowingly, or recklessly for an armed criminal action charge.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Shrum, J.
No, the admission of the slogans was not reversible error for the manslaughter conviction, though the armed criminal action conviction should be reversed. Three of the slogans were relevant to the element of criminal negligence because they demonstrated the defendant's knowledge of alcohol's effects on his perception and reality. This knowledge is a 'circumstance known to him' that the jury could consider when determining if his failure to perceive the risk of drunk driving was a 'gross deviation' from the standard of care. While the other slogans were irrelevant, their admission was harmless error. The other evidence of guilt—the defendant's admission of heavy drinking, the trooper's observations, and the nature of the collision—was so strong that the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter regardless of the irrelevant slogans.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental evidentiary rule against the use of character evidence to prove guilt. It clarifies that a defendant must be tried for the specific criminal act, not for their general character, beliefs, or lifestyle. The court's focus on the prosecutor's inflammatory use of the evidence in closing arguments highlights how prejudice is assessed, emphasizing that even with strong evidence of guilt, an appeal to punish a defendant for their character can lead to a reversal. The decision serves as a caution to prosecutors against introducing irrelevant but emotionally charged evidence, establishing that such tactics risk overturning a conviction on appeal.
