Missouri Supreme Court upholds Bruner murder conviction in Derek Moore shooting

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed the first-degree murder conviction of Jeffrey Bruner in the shooting of Newton native Derek Moore five years ago outside a Joplin movie theater complex.

The state’s high court ruled that Circuit Court Judge Gayle Crane did not err by refusing to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury at Bruner’s trial in March 2015. A 5-2 majority of the court decided that the defense failed to present substantial evidence to support a self-defense claim by the defendant and the submission of such an instruction to the jury.

Bruner’s appellate attorney, Ellen Flottman, had argued before the Missouri Supreme Court a year ago that there was sufficient evidence of self-defense presented at trial to have the question left up to the jury.

Bruner, 44, shot and killed Moore, 37, the night of Nov. 1, 2013, as the assistant football coach at Missouri Southern State University emerged from the Northstar Stadium 14 theater complex in the company of Bruner’s estranged wife, who later divorced Bruner.

Bruner was found guilty in a trial three years ago of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and was sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Missouri prior to the appeal to the state’s high court.

Under the state’s self-defense law, a person may not use deadly force on someone else unless they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or serious injury. The Missouri Supreme Court has settled in recent years on a “substantial evidence” standard for determining if a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction to jurors.

The court noted in its decision Tuesday that the three elements of the state’s self-defense law are: that a person may use physical force on another to the extent that they reasonably believe such force is necessary; that deadly force may not be used unless one reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury to oneself or others; and that a person does not have a duty to retreat from a property, dwelling or vehicle that they have lawfully entered.

Trial testimony established that Bruner became upset when he learned through social media that his wife was on a date with another man. He went to the theater complex armed with two guns and confronted them as they came out after seeing a movie.

An argument took place during which Moore threatened to have Bruner’s throat slit. Flottman argued on appeal that this threat coupled with Bruner’s perception that Moore moved his arm in a manner that made Bruner believe that he was trying to grab him were enough to warrant a self-defense instruction to the jury.

The majority decision written by Judge Laura Denvir Stith opined that the verbal threats Moore made were not sufficient to justify Bruner’s use of deadly force.

Stith wrote: “Mr. Bruner escalated what would at most have been a simple assault — an attempt by Moore to grab him — into a deadly confrontation.”

She further noted that Bruner never actually testified that he acted in self-defense.

“Although he testified and described his mental state before shooting Mr. Moore, Mr. Bruner never testified that he thought Mr. Moore was going to hit him or that he was in fear of death, serious physical injury or any forcible felony,” Stith wrote. “None of the many eyewitnesses saw a weapon in Mr. Moore’s possession or saw him try to attack Mr. Bruner, and the evidence was that Mr. Moore did not either hit or exhibit a weapon to Mr. Bruner.”

Judge Paul Wilson wrote in a dissenting opinion that Bruner’s convictions should be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. He cited the high court’s responsibility to review cases in the light most favorable to defendants and that this standard of review should remove all doubt as to whether there was sufficient evidence for a self-defense instruction to have been submitted to the jury.

Moore’s mother, Darcy Moore Kane, who lives in Iowa, said in a telephone interview Tuesday that her son’s murderer is “where he belongs” and that her family is grateful for the court’s decision, helping to ensure that Bruner remains there.

“I think, as a family, it’s time that we’re allowed to move forward and to celebrate Derek’s life instead of so much focus on his death,” Kane said.

Kimberly Fisher, the assistant prosecutor who tried the Jeffrey Bruner murder case, said Tuesday that she was pleased that the state’s high court came to the same conclusions the prosecution did at trial.

“The self-defense instruction wasn’t warranted based on the evidence,” she said.