Court Opinion

ID: 9755352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:35:31.574854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:06.448681
License: Public Domain

DUANE BENTON, Judge,
dissenting.
According to the majority, the circuit court erred by not allowing the jury to *285decide whether Reginald Westfall used non-deadly force in self-defense.
Here, Westfall cut the victim six times on the face and neck with his carpet knife. Westfall testified that he “grabbed” one of his tools because the victim “refused to get off me.” Westfall “went in my little side pocket area of my coveralls and grabbed it out.” The pocket was “down the side of my leg.” Once Westfall grabbed the utility knife — the kind with a little latch — he pushed a little button to make the blade come up.” “I cut Mr. Jenkins with it.” Westfall claimed he just started swinging and couldn’t tell how many times he swung the knife.
As for the amount of force the victim used on him, Westfall said he “got beat pretty bad,” “dazed” “by constant blows,” “with some kind of hard object.” Westfall insisted: “I never had a chance to really punch him.” “I never punched him.” Westfall testified: “I felt at that point that I was gonna get a serious injury, if not killed, seriously, because of what’s happened before.” Westfall emphasized that the victim had, seven months earlier, attacked him with a 24-inch hydraulic jack handle.
The two preceding paragraphs constitute the evidence in the light most favorable to Westfall. Deadly force means force that the defendant knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Section 563.011(1) RSMo 2000. Based on Westfall’s evidence, any reasonable juror would believe that his use of the knife created a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. The trial court did not err in limiting its self-defense instruction to the use of deadly force.
In Point II, Westfall asserts that he is entitled to a hearing on a newly discovered letter.1 To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show:
(l)the evidence has come to the knowledge of the defendant since trial; (2)it was not owing to want of due diligence that it was not discovered sooner; (3)the evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different result on a new trial; and (4)it is not cumulative only or merely impeaching the credibility of a witness.
State v. Whitfield, 939 S.W.2d 361, 367 (Mo. banc 1997). Moreover, “a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be accompanied by proof, either in the motion itself or by affidavits.” State v. Davis, 698 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Mo. App.1985). The absence of an affidavit or other proof is alone sufficient to deny the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Id. at 603.
Westfall’s supplemental post-trial motion was not accompanied by an affidavit or other evidentiary proof of the letter. Even if Westfall had provided proper evi-dentiary support, the letter does not prove any perjury either by the victim regarding the incident, or by the letter-writer (who was not asked by either party during trial about the facts included in the letter). Accordingly, the letter is not so material that it would probably produce a different result on a new trial.
Because I would affirm the judgment, I dissent.

. The analysis of Point II substantially follows the opinion authored by Judge Mary K. Hoff for the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, where this appeal was originally decided.