## Facts

- Pedro M. Hernandez drove a van that collided with a southbound truck on a highway in Polk County, Missouri, killing passenger Cecil Barrymore and injuring the driver and another passenger.
- The truck’s driver testified that Hernandez’s van came around a curve, slid into the wrong lane, briefly returned to its lane, then reentered the truck’s lane and struck the truck, knocking it into a ditch as the van overturned.
- A witness rendering aid testified Hernandez said he had consumed a “12-pack and some whiskey.”
- At trial, the State introduced stickers and pins bearing “drinking slogans” found on the van’s visor, arguing they showed Hernandez’s knowledge that alcohol impairs driving and his attitude toward excessive drinking.
- Hernandez objected that the slogans were irrelevant and amounted to impermissible character evidence.
- A jury convicted Hernandez of involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence and of armed criminal action; the trial court imposed the recommended sentences.
- Hernandez also sought post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15; the motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether items bearing “drinking slogans” found in the defendant’s vehicle were relevant to prove any element of involuntary manslaughter based on criminal negligence.
2. Whether admitting the “drinking slogans” improperly introduced character or propensity evidence when the defendant did not place his character in issue.
3. Whether the evidentiary error required reversal of the convictions and, if so, the scope of any remand.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the convictions for involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.
- The court held the “drinking slogans” evidence was improperly admitted because it was irrelevant to the elements the State was required to prove and functioned as improper character evidence.
- The court remanded for a new trial on involuntary manslaughter only.
- The consolidated appeal from the denial of the Rule 29.15 motion was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is admissible only if it is relevant, meaning it tends to prove a material fact in dispute.
- Involuntary manslaughter predicated on criminal negligence is judged objectively; the State need not prove the defendant was subjectively aware that the conduct created a risk to others.
- When subjective awareness is not an element, evidence offered solely to show the defendant’s attitudes or generalized knowledge about risk may be irrelevant.
- The State generally may not introduce character or propensity evidence to show conduct in conformity with a purported character trait unless the defendant first puts character in issue.
- Reversal is warranted when the erroneous admission of irrelevant, inflammatory evidence may have materially affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Hernandez’s convictions because “drinking slogan” items from his van were not probative of any required element of criminal-negligence involuntary manslaughter and improperly invited the jury to convict based on character and propensity rather than the statutory elements; the case was remanded for retrial on manslaughter only, and the post-conviction appeal was dismissed.


State v. Hernandez, 815 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)