# State v. Randolph

> Supreme Court of Missouri · June 19, 1973 · 496 S.W.2d 257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681807

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lonnie RANDOLPH, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** June 19, 1973
- **Citations:** 496 S.W.2d 257; 1973 Mo. LEXIS 898
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Finch
- **Judges:** Higgins, Seiler, Morgan, Finch, Donnelly, Bardgett, Holman, Henley
- **Cited by:** 31 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681807

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an instruction on inconsistent defenses was justified where defendant offered no evidence, but State offered defendant’s confession which contained elements of both self-defense and excusable homicide by accidental shooting

## Opinion text

FINCH, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion but file this additional explanation only in the interest of making clear that it is my understanding that we are not holding that failure to instruct on the law of the case automatically results in plain error. We expressly held to the contrary in State v. Patterson, 443 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. banc 1969), and it is my understanding that what we said there continues to be the rule. Under that decision, we determine on a case to case basis whether manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has occurred as the result of the failure of the court to give an instruction required under the law of the case.
In this case, the State’s evidence was sufficient to entitle defendant to an instruction on excusable homicide resulting from accidental discharge of the gun. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to such an instruction, whether requested or not, as a part of the law of the case. The court did not so instruct, but instead gave an instruction on self-defense. In my judgment, the evidence did not support such an instruction. Defendant’s account of the occurrence as related to the jury claimed accident, not self-defense. In addition, the evidence disclosed that deceased was shot in the back. Under such circumstances, it was confusing to instruct the jury on self-defense, which the evidence did not support, and at the same time fail to instruct on accident when the evidence introduced by the State as to what the defendant said was sufficient to authorize an instruction jp excusable homicide resulting from accidental discharge of the gun. In this confusing situation, I conclude that the failure of the court to instruct on the defense of excusable homicide resulting from accidental discharge of the gun was plain error in this case for which a new trial should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681807. Public record. Not legal advice.