Court Opinion

ID: 9661415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:38:37.056331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.321981
License: Public Domain

LEEDY, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion but desire to amplify my views respecting the challenged instruction, No. 6. We have characterized an instruction in the language of No. 6 as being in. effect an elaboration upon a burden of proof instruction. Price v. Schnitker, 361 Mo. 1179, 239 S.W.Zd 296, 300. I do not say that the giving of instruction No. 6 constituted reversible error, but I am of the view that a properly worded, short, simple instruction on burden of proof is much to be desired over the prevailing practice of giving so-called counter burden of proof instructions, -and others of the type of No. 6. Such was the view of this division of the court in directing that the counterpart of No^ 6 be not given on retrial o-f Price v. Schnitker. '•