Court Opinion

ID: 9684961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:19:56.391456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.381401
License: Public Domain

RENDLEN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion but make the following observations concerning the dissenting opinion which compares apples with oranges. State v. Baker, 636 S.W.2d 902 (Mo. banc 1982), cert, den., - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 834, 74 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1983), held that a capital murder defendant was not entitled to a first degree instruction, not supported by the evidence. The offense was committed after January 1, 1979, and § 556.046.1(2), RSMo Supp.1979 made it clear that “instructing down” was not required in homicide cases, unless there was evidentiary support for the lesser offense. *679This wholly sound proposition has been followed in later cases. As the Baker opinion points out, the Supreme Court of the United States holds, emphatically, that there is no due process problem. Hooper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605,102 S.Ct. 2049, 72 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982). There is no reason why Baker should not be applied to any case in which the homicide occurred after January 1, 1979.
State v. Goddard, 649 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. banc 1983), involved an offense committed in October of 1980. The jury was instructed on first degree murder. This instruction was improper by the Baker rule, but the trial court had no way of knowing this, and followed earlier cases indicating that it was obliged to instruct down. The jury convicted of the lesser offense. We found that the instructing down was not prejudicial to the defendant, on the facts of the case.
The present case likewise involved an alleged improper instructing down, for a 1979 killing. The defendant requested a first degree instruction, and the jury convicted of first degree. Goddard is clearly applicable. There is no prejudice.
There is no reason the holdings in Goddard and Holland should require the retrial of Baker nor cases applying the rule of that case.