State v. Redmond
1996 WL 724595, 937 S.W.2d 205, 1996 Mo. LEXIS 84 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court must instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second degree murder if there is sufficient evidence that the defendant caused the death under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause, even if a self-defense instruction based on the same facts is also given.
Facts:
- On May 8, 1993, Marlon Redmond was washing his car in front of his mother's house.
- Von Michael Johnson, who lived nearby, walked past Redmond with Laura Sherwood, who was allegedly the mother of Redmond's child.
- Johnson stopped and began arguing with Redmond, accusing him of treating Sherwood badly.
- Redmond told Johnson to stay out of Laura's business, to which Johnson replied, 'Make me' and reached into his pants pocket.
- Redmond testified he thought Johnson had a gun and was scared, believing Johnson intended to kill or hurt him.
- Redmond then grabbed a baseball bat from his car's trunk and hit Johnson in the head, killing him.
- Redmond testified he hit Johnson once, but the deputy medical examiner, Dr. Charles Short, testified Johnson sustained three separate head wounds consistent with a baseball bat, requiring a minimum of two blows.
- Johnson's mother and an emergency room nurse testified that Johnson did not have a weapon on his person.
- After his arrest, Redmond stated, 'I can’t believe this happened. It just made me mad, so mad. We just had this baby. I can’t believe I hit him. I can’t believe this happened.'
Procedural Posture:
- The state filed an amended information charging Marlon Redmond with second degree murder and armed criminal action.
- The case was tried to a jury, and the trial court refused Redmond's requested instructions on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter but submitted an instruction on self-defense.
- The jury found Redmond guilty of second degree murder and armed criminal action.
- Redmond appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, arguing the trial court erred in refusing the manslaughter instructions.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed Redmond's conviction, with one judge dissenting.
- The case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri upon the dissenting judge's certification that the majority opinion was contrary to State v. Newlon.
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 voluntary manslaughter when there was evidence suggesting the defendant acted under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause, even though a self-defense instruction based on similar facts was given?
Opinions:
Majority - HOLSTEIN, Chief Justice
Yes, the trial court erred by refusing Redmond’s proffered instruction on voluntary manslaughter because there was sufficient evidence to support an acquittal of murder in the second degree and a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter requires causing death "under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause," where 'sudden passion' is directly provoked by the victim at the time of the offense, and 'adequate cause' is a provocation that would reasonably produce passion in an ordinary person sufficient to substantially impair their self-control. The court noted that words alone are insufficient, but referenced prior cases like State v. Fears (physical altercation) and State v. Newlon (brandishing a weapon) where similar facts supported a sudden passion instruction. Redmond's testimony that Johnson confronted him threateningly, accused him of mistreating Sherwood, and displayed what Redmond believed to be a gun, causing him to fear for his life and strike Johnson, provided sufficient evidence to present the issue of sudden passion arising from adequate cause to the jury. The jury, not the court, assesses credibility and weighs evidence. The court expressly overruled State v. Jennings and State v. Simmons to the extent they held that self-defense and sudden passion instructions based on the same testimony are mutually exclusive. A jury could rationally reject self-defense (e.g., unreasonable apprehension or excessive force) while still finding that the confrontation and perceived weapon display constituted adequate provocation that impaired the defendant’s self-control and led to sudden passion. Therefore, each instruction must be evaluated separately and given if supported by the evidence. The denial of the voluntary manslaughter instruction was reversible error, requiring a new trial. Reversal of the murder conviction also necessitates reversal of the armed criminal action conviction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies that instructions for self-defense and voluntary manslaughter, even when based on the same underlying factual testimony, are not mutually exclusive and must both be submitted to a jury if supported by the evidence. The ruling reinforces the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact and credibility, allowing them to draw nuanced conclusions—potentially accepting parts of a defendant's testimony for mitigation even if rejecting it for complete acquittal. This precedent ensures defendants receive instructions on all applicable defenses and lesser included offenses, promoting more comprehensive and potentially fairer verdicts in cases involving heated confrontations and perceived threats.
