Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David R. JOHNSON, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-06-30
Citations: 534 S.W.3d 290
Docket Number: No. ED 104304
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David R. JOHNSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 534
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David R. JOHNSON, Appellant.
No. ED 104304
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: June 30, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 22, 2017
Application for Transfer Denied December 19, 2017
Samuel E: Buffaloe, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Josh Hawley, Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City; MO, for respondent.
Before James M. Dowd, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
ORDER
David R. Johnson appeals his convictions,by a Montgomery County jury of first-degree assault, second-degree murder, first-degree burglary, tampering with physical evidence, and two counts of armed criminal action arising out of a brutal altercation during which Raymond Post ("Victim Post") was seriously injured from multiple stab wounds and Fernando Mel-gar ("Victim Melgar") was killed from stab wounds. Appellant raises five points on appeal. In point I, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the, State's, objection to a question in voir dire.about whether Appellant had permission to be inside Victim Post's home. In points II, III, and IV, Appellant avers that the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that Appellant acted in defense of another person with respect to his assault, murder, burglary, and armed criminal action charges. In point V, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment against him on the tampering with physical evidence charge because there was insufficient evidence to find that his knife was used in the assault or murder. Finding no error, we affirm. An .extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25.