## Facts

- Mabel Stewart stopped at a Cape Girardeau rest area and entered the women’s restroom.
- She was grabbed, forced to the floor, beaten, and robbed of her car keys and watch.
- Stewart identified Roscoe James Pittman as the person who attacked and robbed her.
- Stewart testified R. V. Pride did not attack or threaten her, but entered the restroom once.
- A truck driver, Gary Lively, heard Stewart scream and saw Pittman inside the women’s restroom with Pride standing nearby; the two left together toward their car.
- Stewart obtained a pistol from her vehicle; Lively took the pistol and approached the men’s car from about 60–90 feet away.
- Pittman pointed a .22 caliber rifle toward Lively and shots were exchanged.
- Pittman and Pride fled in their car but were later apprehended.
- Pride was tried as a participant in first-degree robbery and assault with intent to kill with malice; the jury convicted on both counts, and the judge imposed consecutive sentences (20 years and 5 years).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required submission of a self-defense instruction on the assault charge arising from the exchange of gunfire.
2. Whether the evidence required an instruction on the lesser included offense of assault without malice.
3. Whether denying an indigent defendant state-funded court-reporter services for pretrial proceedings required reversal absent a specific showing of prejudice.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike four venirepersons for cause.
5. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument exceeded permissible bounds and caused prejudice.

## Decision

- The convictions and consecutive sentences were affirmed.
- The trial court properly refused a self-defense instruction because the record did not supply substantial evidence supporting self-defense.
- The trial court properly refused an assault-without-malice instruction because the evidence did not permit a rational finding of the lesser grade while acquitting on the greater.
- Denial of requested state-funded court-reporter services was not reversible error because Pride failed to show specific prejudice from the denial.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenges for cause because the venirepersons did not demonstrate actual bias.
- The prosecutor’s closing argument fell within the wide latitude allowed, and no prejudicial error was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A self-defense instruction must be given only when there is substantial evidence supporting self-defense, viewed most favorably to the defense theory.
- Self-defense is unavailable when the evidence shows the defendant (or an associate) acted as an aggressor or used force to facilitate escape during or immediately after a felony, rather than to repel an unlawful attack.
- A lesser included offense instruction is required only when the evidence would allow a jury to convict on the lesser while acquitting on the greater.
- An indigent defendant seeking state-funded ancillary services must show a concrete need and resulting prejudice from denial; denial is not reversible error without a specific showing of impairment to the defense.
- Rulings on challenges for cause are reviewed for abuse of discretion; equivocal voir dire responses do not require removal when the juror ultimately indicates an ability to follow the law and decide fairly.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to control closing argument; reversal requires a showing that argument exceeded permissible inferences and produced prejudice.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed Pride’s robbery and assault convictions, holding that the record did not support self-defense or a lesser-assault submission and that alleged trial errors concerning indigent resources, jury selection, and closing argument did not warrant reversal absent demonstrated prejudice or abuse of discretion.


State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)