Court Opinion

ID: 9596781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:53:03.57727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:58.098681
License: Public Domain

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
It is an unfortunate twist of irony that the majority convicts the trial court of reversible error for refusing to submit an erroneous instruction. In so doing, the majority effectively overrules numerous cases holding expressly that a trial court cannot be convicted of error in refusing to submit an erroneous instruction. See, e. g., State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 37 (Mo. banc 1992); State v. Immekus, 28 S.W.3d 421, 432-33 (Mo.App.2000); State v. Bin-nington, 978 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Mo.App. 1998); State v. Powers, 913 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Colson, 926 S.W.2d 879, 883 (MoApp.1996). Indeed, until now the cases went so far as to say that the trial court is not obligated to give a proposed instruction that is not “meticulously correct,” at least as to its fundamental statement of the law.. Binnington, 978 S.W.2d at 776; see also State v. Betts, 646 S.W.2d 94, 99 (Mo. banc 1983) (concluding that a trial court commits prejudicial error when the instruction given misstates the law or confuses the jury). The implicit corollary to these cases, of course, is that trial courts have no duty to correct proposed erroneous instructions sua sponte.
This Court’s decision in Parkhurst is particularly instructive. Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon, and on appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred in failing to give his proposed self-defense instruction. In affirming the conviction, this Court held that the instruction offered “misstated the legal standard by which defendant’s right to self-defense must be measured,” and, as a result, “the trial court committed no error in rejecting the instruction....” Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 36-37. However, under the majority analysis in this case, Parkhurst was wrongly decided because the trial court should have corrected the proposed self-defense instruction rather than rejecting it.
Here, the defendant concedes that the tendered lesser-included offense instruction was flawed, and, in my view, the flaw was much more than a mere drafting error. The instruction began by misidentifying the greater offense, stating, “If you do not find the defendant guilty of possession of more than five grams of marijuana with intent to deliver ...,” as if that charge was the greater offense, when, in fact, the greater offense charged and submitted in the verdict director was that the defendant had delivered marijuana within 2,000 feet of the school. The inexplicable reference to “possession of more than five grams of marijuana with intent to deliver” was a significant misstatement of the law and certainly would have confused the jury.
As the majority notes, however, the trial court rejected the instruction for the wrong reason. But, regardless of the court’s stated reason, the ruling rejecting the instruction must stand if it can be justified for any reason, State v. White, 936 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Mo. banc 1997), State v. Bradley, 811 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. banc 1991), which here, is that the instruction was not in proper form.
In any event, in an attempt to circumvent the problem that the instruction offered by defendant was defective, the majority suggests that the state was under an obligation to disclose the defect, and then holds that it was incumbent upon the court to correct the defect. This shifting of responsibility from the defense to the court and the prosecution is, of course, a dramatic departure from established case-*477law. Until now, it has been incumbent on the defendant to ensure in the first instance that a proposed instruction is in proper form, and if not, the instruction may properly be rejected. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d at 37. Although under Rule 28.02(a), the court is under a duty “to instruct on all questions of law arising in the case that are necessary ...,” under Rule 28.02(b), that duty is qualified by the requirement that “counsel shall submit to the court instructions and verdict forms that the party requests be given.” Under these rules and the scheme of MAI CR3d, the trial court’s duty to instruct on all questions of law is proactive only on instructions that are required to be given, whether requested or not. On the other hand, the duty is not proactive as to lesser-included offense instructions and other instructions that need not be submitted unless requested by one of the parties, State v. Gorman, 940 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Mo.App. 1997), such as the lesser-included offense instruction at issue here, State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 636 (Mo. banc 2001); sec. 556.046.2, RSMo 2000.
The reason for the rules is obvious: The trial court should not be required to inject itself in a case to correct a party’s missteps in submitting proposed optional instructions. This concern is particularly evident in a case like this where there are several potentially appropriate optional instructions — the lesser included offense instructions of 1) possession of not more than thirty-five grams of marijuana, sec. 195.202(3); 2) delivery of not more than five grams of marijuana, sec. 195.211(3); and 3) possession with intent to deliver not more than five grams of marijuana, sec. 195.211(3). To be sure, the trial court’s job will be fraught with error if courts are required to somehow divine a party’s intent, strategy and reasoning in drafting and submitting such optional instructions. Indeed, the trial court is a neutral arbiter and should not be put in the position of trying the case on behalf of one party or the other. That is the very problem Rule 28.02(b) seeks to avoid.
Of course, a trial comí should always correct a proposed, flawed instruction where the flaw is patent, but trivial. In that situation, the intent of the party submitting the flawed instruction is clear, despite the trivial — non-prejudicial—error. However, where, as here, the optional instruction contains a major, substantive misstatement of law, the trial court has no duty to provide a cure, and failure to do so does not constitute error, plain or otherwise. Although the majority is correct that under State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. banc 2001), instructional error can constitute plain error, an underlying error on which plain error can be predicated must first be shown. Here there was none.
In short, I would follow the well-established authority that allows a trial court to reject erroneous instructions, and for that reason, I would find no error and affirm the judgment entered.