Court Opinion

ID: 9643796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:40:48.62479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:04.001088
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I do not believe the instructions did fairly take account of the doctrine of diminished mental capacity. I do not believe the quoted portions of instruction No. 8, the standard instruction on capital murder, or the converse thereof by instruction No. 9, sufficiently alerted the jury to the defense the defendant was seeking to make. This can readily be seen by examining MAI-CR2d 3.74, which provides as follows:
3.74 Mental Responsibility: Diminished Mental Capacity
Evidence that the defendant (had) (did not have) (had or did not have) a mental disease or defect may be considered by you in determining whether the defendant had or did not have the state of mind required of [name of offense ] and set out in Instruction No. - as an element of that offense.
If, after considering all of the evidence, including evidence that the defendant did *441or did not have a mental disease or defect, you find and believe from the evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct submitted in Instruction No. -but have a reasonable doubt that he acted [insert the mental state involved, such as “with the (purpose) (knowledge) submitted in that instruction,” or “purposely," or “knowingly,” or “recklessly,” or “with intent to_,” or “after considering taking the life of -and reflecting upon this matter cooly and fully before doing so”], then you must find the defendant not guilty of the offense of [name of offense] as submitted in Instruction No._
Nothing in the instructions given in this case invites such direct consideration by the jury, nor does the argument of counsel supply the deficiency, particularly in view of MAI-CR 2.01, 2.02, 2.03 and 2.68, both First and Second, which tell the jury that the law it must follow is that given by the court, not counsel. Diminished mental capacity goes directly to an issue which the jury must determine in arriving at its verdict and is one of the “questions of law necessary for their information in giving their verdict”. See § 546.070(4), RSMo 1978.
I realize that MAI-CR2d 3.74 was made effective for all trials after January 1,1979, and this trial took place a few weeks prior to that date. But the principle upon which the defense rests was established long prior thereto and there is no reason why an instruction on the defense is not required when supported by the evidence and where it is clear, as here, that it was defendant’s real and only defense.
In my opinion, the instructions did not fairly present defendant’s defense and it was reversible error for the court not to have instructed on the theory of diminished capacity.