Missouri Supreme Court acts to end ‘tortured history’ on jury instructions

The Missouri Supreme Court on July 16 issued a unanimous ruling designed to put an end to the “tortured history” of an “inconsistency in the law” regarding jury instructions.

The focus of the high court was the principle, enshrined into law in the 1911 decision State v. Bidstrup, that a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury instruction as long as it contains a theory supported by substantial evidence — regardless of who has introduced that evidence.

RELATED: Shifting gears: Missouri Supreme Court pace picks up in 2019

The problem, Judge Paul C. Wilson wrote, is that three decades after Bidstrup the high court made the mistake of carving out an exception. In 1943, the judges held in State v. Wright that if a defendant’s own testimony contradicts the requested instruction, the instruction shouldn’t be allowed — for example, if a defendant both denies committing a crime and claims he committed it in self-defense.

That exception in Wright was an error, Wilson wrote, because it effectively tasked the court with deciding which of the defendant’s assertions is true — and this “would be a usurpation of the jury’s fact-finding role.”

In addition, Wilson found, “Wright for decades has been erroneously cited for propositions far beyond its holding. This needs to end.” Therefore, Wilson wrote, the decision in Wright “and any others that contravene Bidstrup are overruled and should no longer be followed.”

“Going forward,” Wilson wrote, “it will be simplest if, when determining whether a defendant is entitled to a requested instruction, the court evaluates each requested instruction individually.”

The occasion for this ruling was a case related to a stabbing that occurred in 2014 outside the Little Bar, a now-shuttered tavern that was located near Carondelet Park in south St. Louis. On May 8 of that year, according to the opinion, Andrew Barnett was inside the bar when he and another man got into a physical altercation. The bartender threw them out.

Once outside, the man said to Barnett “now you’re going to die you [expletive].” Barnett himself had at least one knife in his possession; he claimed he saw a “metal and shiny” object in the man’s hand. A witness who saw the ensuing fight said the man “dropped like a bag of rocks,” and shortly thereafter, the man was on the ground, bleeding from several stab wounds.

The police asked Barnett if he stabbed the man in self-defense, but Barnett “adamantly” denied stabbing him at all, according to the opinion. He was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action.

At trial, Barnett offered a self-defense instruction, but the state objected. St. Louis Circuit Judge Thomas J. Frawley sustained the objection. The jury found Barnett guilty. He sought a new trial, arguing that the circuit court erred in refusing to submit a self-defense instruction. The circuit court denied his motion, and Barnett appealed. The high court has vacated the judgment entering the jury verdict and has remanded to the circuit court.

Barnett’s attorney, Jim Martin of Martin, Malec & Leopold in St. Louis, said the opinion was “pretty well done by a relatively conservative justice who looked at the law.” He added: “I think if there’s any question at all, give the instruction. If the evidence is so clear, the jury will do their duty anyway.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is State v. Barnett, SC96138.