State v. Robinett
312 Mo. 635, 281 S.W. 29, 1926 Mo. LEXIS 809 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Insulting words alone do not justify a killing. Furthermore, where a court provides a general instruction on self-defense, its failure to give a more specific instruction on communicated threats is not an error if the defendant did not request one.
Facts:
- Sometime prior to the killing, John Carter and Bill Robinett had trouble, which Robinett attributed to Carter wanting him to work at a still and making unwanted advances toward Robinett's wife, who was partially insane.
- Robinett claimed Carter had threatened to kill him on several occasions when confronted about the advances.
- Robinett had ordered Carter to stay away from his home.
- On the morning of November 26, 1923, Carter went to Robinett's house, accompanied by Noah Miles, and stopped at the front gate.
- Carter called out to Robinett, who was on his porch, saying, “Bill, come here I want to talk to you.”
- Robinett went into his house, retrieved a shotgun, came back out, and told Miles, “Get out of the way, Noah, I am going to shoot him.”
- Robinett then fired two shots, striking Carter in the breast and killing him.
- A subsequent search of Carter's body revealed that he was unarmed.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill Robinett was charged with murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Butler County, the trial court.
- At trial, Robinett invoked a plea of self-defense.
- A jury found Robinett guilty of murder in the second degree.
- The trial court entered a judgment sentencing Robinett to fifty years in the penitentiary.
- Robinett (the appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury instruction that correctly explains the relevance of uncommunicated threats erroneous for failing to also explicitly instruct on the purpose of communicated threats, when a general self-defense instruction was already given and the defendant did not request a more specific instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, P. J.
No, the instruction is not erroneous. The instruction on threats was general in its terms and did not place any limitation on how the jury was to consider communicated threats. Because the court had already given a full and complete instruction on self-defense, which generally protects the defendant's rights regarding threats and other defensive matters, the court was not required to give a more specific instruction on communicated threats unless the defendant requested one. Since Robinett's counsel did not request such an instruction, he cannot now complain about its absence. The court also correctly instructed the jury that abusive words or epithets alone do not justify an assault or killing. Finally, the prosecutor's improper comment about the defendant's wife not testifying was immediately corrected by the trial court, which did everything defense counsel asked, so no reversible error occurred.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of procedural default, placing the onus on defense counsel to request specific jury instructions. It establishes that a general, correct instruction on a defense like self-defense is often sufficient to protect a defendant's rights. The ruling implies that appellate courts will not find reversible error in a trial court's failure to give a more nuanced instruction on an element of a defense if the defendant's attorney did not specifically ask for it at trial. This encourages trial lawyers to be vigilant and precise in their requests to charge the jury, rather than relying on the court to sua sponte cover every evidentiary detail.
