Opinion ID: 1587185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: defense of premises

Text: The trial court similarly refused to submit an instruction on defense of premises because Ms. Avery testified that the shooting was an accident and there was insufficient evidence that deadly force was needed. Ms. Avery claims there was evidence supporting defense of premises and the refusal to submit defense of premises was reversible error. In Missouri, defense of premises is essentially accelerated self-defense because it authorizes `protective acts to be taken earlier than they otherwise would be authorized, that is, at the time when and place where the intruder is seeking to cross the protective barrier of the house.' Perkins v. State, 77 S.W.3d 21, 24 (Mo. App. E.D.2002). Once the person enters the premises without resistance, the principles of self-defense apply. State v. Lumpkin, 850 S.W.2d 388, 392 (Mo.App. W.D.1993). Section 563.036.2 provides that deadly force may be used in defense of premises when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what [s]he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or burglary upon h[er] dwelling. Sec. 563.036.2(2). Ms. Avery had the burden of injecting the issue of defense of premises into the case. Sec. 563.036.3. The State claims she did not do so, because the evidence at most proves a trespass. Ms. Avery claims that, to the contrary, the evidence supported the occurrence of a burglary because Mr. Paris was attempting to enter her house against her will for the purpose of assaulting her. Burglary in the first degree occurs when a person knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein and there is present in the structure another person who is not a participant in the crime. Sec. 569.160.1(3). An assault in the third-degree occurs if the person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. Sec. 565.070.1(5). Thus, Ms. Avery was entitled to submission of defense of premises if there was evidence from which the jury could find that Mr. Paris was attempting to enter the premises unlawfully against resistance by her for the purpose of knowingly causing offensive physical contact with her. Although in the usual case the facts would not be likely to support submission of both this defense and regular self-defense, on the unusual facts of this case there was evidence supporting both submissions. Ms. Avery testified that she told Mr. Paris to leave the premises and had to force him out by displaying a revolver. He returned, trespassed, came to her open door, saw her resist his entry by pointing a revolver at him, and moved toward her, threatening to beat [her] f___ing a___ if she did not drop the gun. He then walked purposefully toward her and struggled with her for the gun. Ms. Avery shot him. He was found dead in the doorway. A hair with the root attached was found in his hand, supporting an inference that he had grabbed her hair during the struggle, and his pants were found unzipped. From this evidence, the jury could have found that Mr. Paris was attempting to enter the premises against resistance for the purpose of beating her and that he grabbed her hair in doing so and struggled with her for the gun. The credibility of this testimony was for the jury. The evidence supported a defense of premises instruction and failure to give it constituted reversible error.