Court Opinion

ID: 9679595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:58:13.614194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:16.287952
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the principal opinion that the court should have given an instruction submitting the defense of accident. However, I do not believe that the defendant received a fair trial without such an instruction or that the fact that he could have argued without the instruction that the killing was accidental was in practical effect the equivalent of the instruction, so that the failure to give it was not a manifest injustice.
If the court had given the instruction as it was required to do, whether asked for or not, then this is what the jury would have been told in such an instruction according to MAI-CR:
“One of the issues in this case is whether the death of Linnette Robinson was an excusable homicide. By ‘excusable homicide’ is meant the killing of another by accident or misfortune under the circumstances submitted in this instruction. On that issue you are instructed as follows:
“1. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of Linnette Robinson was not an excusable homicide. The defendant is not required to prove that the death was excusable. If the death was an excusable homicide, or if the evidence in this case leaves in your mind a reasonable doubt as to whether the death was an excusable homicide, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
“2. You will acquit the defendant on the ground of excusable homicide and return a verdict of not guilty if the death of Lin-nette Robinson was the result of accident or misfortune in a struggle between defendant and another for control of a knife when she was stabbed without unlawful intent and without reckless disregard for human life and safety.”
This would have put the defense of accidental homicide squarely in front of the *535jury with the burden of proof on the state to show that it was not accidental, and in my opinion arguing accident obliquely as not being a part of manslaughter is by no means the practical equivalent of having and being able to argue a direct instruction on the issue. In fact, as shown by the statement of facts in the majority opinion, the case was a close one and the jury could very well have believed that the issue of accident was in doubt, that defendant had not proved it, and hence they could not find for defendant on that basis which would have been a mistaken line of reasoning on the jury’s part and which the instruction would have disspelled. There is no way to tell, of course, what the jury did or did not think in this case. Everything that we say about that is mere speculation. That’s one reason for having written instructions to guide the jury. We still do not know that the jury follows written instructions, but it’s the best system we have and defendant in this case was deprived of an instruction to which under the majority opinion he clearly was entitled. This is not the way defendant should have been tried. The state got everything it was entitled to, but the defendant did not. Under the circumstances this seems to me to be a clear example of manifest injustice against which we should give relief.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.