instruction submitting defense in Missouri

1991The Supreme Court of Missouri held the accused’s testi mony supported an instruction submitting the defense of accident, but did not warrant a manslaughter instruction. 84 S.W.2d at 640 .

1991An example of conduct which supports a submission of involuntary manslaughter is found in State v. Miller, 772 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App.1989).

1965Though we could agree as a general matter that a defendant is entitled to an affirmative submission of his own theory of the facts shown which would, if found, preclude recovery by the plaintiff and absolve the defendant, Anderson v. Welty, Mo.App., 334 S.W.2d 132, 139 , and cases cited note 11, still this does not carry with it the right to submit an erroneous theory.

1964In State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304 , a similar contention was made with regard to an instruction submitting the defense of insanity and this court in ruling the question stated: “ ‘Ought’ expresses bounden duty as well as moral obligation, and carries the idea of conscientious compliance.

1964In State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304 , a similar contention was made with regard to an instruction submitting the defense of insanity and this court in ruling the question stated: “ ‘Ought’ expresses bounden duty as well as moral obligation, and carries the idea of conscientious compliance.

1962Branson v. Abernathy Furniture Co., 344 Mo. 1171 , 130 S.W.2d 562, 568 .

1962Branson v. Abernathy Furniture Co., 344 Mo. 1171 , 130 S.W.2d 562, 568 .

1959"Plaintiff's principal instructions in a primary negligence case are required to refer to defendant's pleaded affirmative defense of contributory negligence only if there is substantial evidence to support it, * * * and not then if this defense, when supported by substantial evidence, is submitted to the jury by instructions given at the request of the defendant." Ketcham v. Thomas, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 642, 647 .

1959“Plaintiff’s principal instructions in a primary negligence case are required to refer to defendant’s pleaded affirmative defense of contributory negligence only if there is substantial evidence to support it, * * * and not then if this defense, when supported by substantial evidence, is submitted to the jury by instructions given at the request of the defendant.” Ketcham v. Thomas, Mo.Sup., 283 S.W.2d 642, 647 .

1949While Snavely was very indefinite about what actually happened, we think his testimony taken as a whole, together with the evidence as to the course of the tracks observed by defendants’ other witnesses, was sufficient to warrant the submission of Instruction A. “Under appropriate circumstances a motorist meeting another automobile may turn to the left.” [Lewis v. Zagata, 350 Mo. 446 , 166 S. W. (2d) 541 and authorities cited; see also Borrini v. Pevely Dairy Co., (Mo. App.) 183 *362 S. W. (2d) 839.] An instruction similar to Instruction A was approved in tbe Lewis case.

1949While Snavely was very indefinite about what actually happened, we think his testimony taken as a whole, together with the evidence as to the course of the tracks observed by defendants’ other witnesses, was sufficient to warrant the submission of Instruction A. “Under appropriate circumstances a motorist meeting another automobile may turn to the left.” [Lewis v. Zagata, 350 Mo. 446 , 166 S. W. (2d) 541 and authorities cited; see also Borrini v. Pevely Dairy Co., (Mo. App.) 183 *362 S. W. (2d) 839.] An instruction similar to Instruction A was approved in tbe Lewis case.

1939Louis Butter Co., 339 Mo. 996 , 98 S.W.2d 742 .] He is also entitled to a sole cause instruction (Doherty v. St.

1939Louis Butter Co., 339 Mo. 996 , 98 S.W.2d 742 .] He is also entitled to a sole cause instruction (Doherty v. St.

1930Co. v. Toomey, 181 Mo. App. 64 , 70; Vaughn v. May, 217 Mo. App. 613 , 628-9.] We find no other error in the case, but in view of a possible retrial we note appellant's further points.

1930The following further authorities may be consulted in support of the proposition that a party litigant is entitled to have the different aspects of the case presented in instructions; and that it is erroneous to refuse an instruction submitting a defense supported by evidence, notwithstanding plaintiff's evidence to the contrary. [Root v. Railroad, 237 Mo. 640 , 651; Jennings v. Cooper, 230 S.W. 325 , 328; Smith v. Southern, 210 Mo. *Page 759 759 Mo. App. 288 , 292; Low v. Paddock, 220 S.W. 969 , 971; Warehouse Stg.

1930Co. v. Toomey, 181 Mo. App. 64 , 70; Vaughn v. May, 217 Mo. App. 613 , 628-9.] We find no other error in the case, but in view of a possible retrial we note appellant's further points.