Sound and fury: Substantial evidence in State v. Bruner.

AuthorMeyer, Anthony J.
PositionMissouri

State v. Bruner, No. SD 33982, 2016 WL 4130831 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (en banc)

  1. INTRODUCTION

    With facts as sensational and lurid as any seen in the practice of law, State v. Bruner (1) has made its way to the Supreme Court of Missouri, where the judges will decide what is meant by the phrase "substantial evidence" and under what circumstances a defendant in a homicide trial is entitled to a self-defense instruction. State v. Bruner has the potential either to clarify a standard that currently lacks a tenable definition or nudge the fact-finding process in jury trials imperceptibly, and impermissibly, outside the province of the jury.

    This Note argues that the current standard for substantial evidence is both confusing and inconsistent in Missouri case law. In the instant case, the standard for substantial evidence applied by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, involved weighing the credibility of the evidence when, according to the weight of authority in Missouri case law, the substantial evidence standard is a low one and does not include making determinations of credibility. (2) Substantial evidence would be better defined as any evidence that is more than a mere scintilla that puts a matter in issue.

    Part II provides a factual summary and the holding of the case. Part III examines Missouri case law for the quantum of evidence meant by substantial evidence in the context of self-defense instructions. Part IV outlines the reasoning behind the Southern District's holding and summarizes Judge Scott's concurring opinion, which focused on prejudice analysis, and Judge Lynch's dissenting opinion, which argued that there was substantial evidence adduced to support a self-defense instruction. Part V proposes an integrated definition of substantial evidence and considers the implications of the Southern District's standard for substantial evidence and those of this Note's proposed alternative. In considering the implications, Part V includes a discussion of the effects of a hypothetical mandatory self-defense instruction in homicide trials. Part V ends with a discussion of prejudice analysis. Part VI provides a conclusion.

  2. FACTS AND HOLDING

    Jeffrey L. Bruner ("Bruner") appealed after he was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the Jasper County Circuit Court. (3)

    In November 2013, Bruner and his wife, Michelle Bruner ("Michelle"), were estranged. (4) Michelle had moved out approximately two weeks before, and, on the evening of November 1, she went to the movies on a date with Derek Moore ("Moore"), (5) an assistant football coach at Missouri Southern State University. Moore stood at 6'5", while Bruner was 5'11" and weighed 170 pounds. (6) Michelle posted a picture of herself and Moore outside the movie theater on Facebook. (7) Bruner's daughter showed him this picture while the two were having dinner. (8) Bruner was stunned; he decided to go to the theater to confront Michelle. (9) Bruner took his daughter home and told her that he "didn't want [her] to see him kill a man," that she probably would not have a mom or dad by the end of the night, and that "he would be going to jail that night[.]" (10)

    Upon arriving home, Bruner looked at the picture again on Facebook. (11) Seething, he took two loaded pistols and an extra ammunition clip and drove to the theater. (12) After Bruner could not find Michelle's Jeep in the parking lot, he parked facing the theater entrance and waited. (13)

    When Michelle and Moore came out of the theater, Bruner approached them and asked what was going on. (14) An argument ensued. (15) Bruner told Moore, "This doesn't have to do with you. I just want to talk to my wife[.]" (16) Moore said, "She moved out pal." (17)

    Moore approached Bruner during the argument, and Bruner took a few steps back. (18) The two were standing on the edge of the median by the street, which Bruner did not want to trip over, so Bruner pivoted around and faced Michelle and Moore again. (19) At this point, Moore said, "I'm not from here, mother fucker, I'll have your throat slit in two hours." (20) Bruner asked why Moore was threatening him. (21)

    Bruner testified that Moore then stepped onto the median, and Bruner perceived that Moore went into a "fighting stance" and moved his arm up to grab Bruner. (22) While Moore's back was turned, Bruner drew a pistol from his jacket and shot Moore several times in the back, killing him. (23) Bruner shot Moore several more times when Moore fell to his knees. (24)

    Witnesses observed that there was an argument preceding the shooting in which Bruner yelled at Michelle, but that there was no physical contact among any of the three before Moore was shot. (25) The only physical contact was after Bruner shot Moore; after Moore had collapsed, Bruner kicked him in the stomach and head. (26)

    A high profile, three-day jury trial followed. (27) At the jury instructions conference, the defense tendered a self-defense instruction (28) pursuant to Missouri Approved Instructions ("MAI")-Criminal 306.06, Part A General Statement of Law, which the State opposed. (29) The trial court refused to grant the instruction. (30)

    Bruner was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. (31) The jury recommended a sentence of life without parole on the murder charge and a sentence of five years' imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge. (32) The defense moved for a new trial, citing the court's refusal to grant the self-defense instruction, but the circuit court denied the motion. (33)

    Bruner appealed on this one point, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because he submitted evidence sufficient to receive the self-defense instruction. (34) He did not offer a point on his conviction for armed criminal action (35) or challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on that count. Compiling the facts most favorable to Bruner, the Southern District held that there was no substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could find that Bruner acted in self-defense. (36)

  3. LEGAL BACKGROUND

    To make a submissible self-defense claim, a defendant must introduce substantial evidence of four elements: (1) absence of aggression on the defender's part, "(2) real or apparent necessity for the defender to kill to save herself from an immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death," "(3) reasonable cause for the defender's belief in such necessity[,] and (4) an attempt by the defender to do all within her power consistent with her personal safety to avoid the danger and the need to take a life." (37) The standard is an objective one, based on how a hypothetical reasonable and prudent person would have acted. (38) The evidence to support a self-defense instruction can come from the defendant's testimony alone. (39) Further, when substantial evidence is adduced for each element, the trial court must submit a self-defense instruction, and failure to do so is reversible error. (40) The Supreme Court of Missouri has ruled that proper jury instructions, "as to all potential convictions and defenses, [are] so essential to ensure a fair trial that if a reasonable juror could draw inferences from the evidence presented the defendant is not required to put on affirmative evidence to support a given instruction." (41) Finally, it should be noted that self-defense is a special affirmative defense, and, once self-defense is injected into a case by a defendant, it becomes the State's burden to disprove it. (42)

    Before analyzing the specifics of self-defense instructions, it is helpful to consider the role of jury instructions in Missouri law. If an instruction from the MAI is applicable to the facts of a case, that instruction must be used. (43) In the Missouri Practice Series, the authors write that the MAI:

    [T]ell the jury in language it can understand how its findings on ultimate issues of fact affect its verdict. Basically, they tell the jurors that if they believe certain propositions of fact, plaintiff wins; if they do not believe any such propositions of fact, plaintiff loses. Under this approach, the jury need not concern itself with the law and instead can concentrate on its role as the sole judge of the facts. The instructions already will have applied the law to the facts. (44) Further, "[e]qually as important, the MAI approach leaves evidentiary detail to the argument of counsel and submits only the ultimate issues for the jury's resolution by simple and concise instructions." (45) In criminal cases, an instruction that is submitted to the jury must be supported by substantial evidence. (46)

    State v. Smith (47) is the most recent Supreme Court of Missouri decision discussing when a trial court must submit a self-defense instruction. In Smith, the defendant fired a gun at a man he wrongly thought was accosting him and inadvertently hit a victim on a nearby playground. (48) In holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to grant a self-defense instruction when there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction, the court asserted, "The circuit court must submit a self-defense instruction 'when substantial evidence is adduced to support it, even when that evidence is inconsistent with the defendant's testimony,' and failure to do so is reversible error." (49)

    The most significant issue in the instant case is what quantum of evidence the term "substantial evidence" is meant to signify. (50) In State v. Avery, which the Bruner court quoted for its rule recitation of substantial evidence, the Supreme Court of Missouri noted substantial evidence is simply evidence "putting a matter in issue." (51) The court was slightly more verbose, however, in State v. Westfall, which came down a year before Avery and was cited throughout Bruner; the Westfall court wrote, "The general rule is that an instruction must be based upon substantial evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Substantial...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT