Opinion ID: 2416788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Refusal to Submit Manslaughter Instruction

Text: Jones argues that the trial court erred by refusing to submit Instructions A (second degree murder) and B (voluntary manslaughter), which offered the jury the alternative of voluntary manslaughter. Jones alleges that there was enough evidence to support finding voluntary manslaughter because the jury could find that he was enraged with and killed the grandmother when she degraded him for his drinking and cocaine problems. Jones' proposed Instruction A instructed the jury that second degree murder required a finding that defendant did not do so under the influence of sudden passion arising from adequate cause. The trial court rejected Jones' proposed Instruction A and instructed the jury on murder in the second degree without reference to sudden passion. The jury, when presented with instructions on murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, had the opportunity to find that Jones' actions were not deliberate. Instead, the jury found the opposite. Thus, no reasonable basis exists to suggest that the jury would have reduced the conviction had they been presented with Instruction B dealing with voluntary manslaughter. See State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 919 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 377, 139 L.Ed.2d 294 (1997). Thus, Jones was not prejudiced by the refusal to give an instruction on yet another lesser crime. See State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 751 (Mo. banc 1997). Furthermore, the review of the record does not support any instructional reference to sudden passion arising from adequate cause. For [w]ords alone, no matter how opprobrious or insulting, are not sufficient to show adequate provocation. State v. Redmond, 937 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Mo. banc 1996).