State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 11 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 10518,10518 |
| Citation | 555 S.W.2d 362 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert Dean ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Lloyd R. Henley, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant was jury-convicted of second degree burglary and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. He appealed.
In determining defendant's first point, i.e., the sufficiency vel non of the evidence to sustain the conviction, we accept as true all evidence which tends to prove defendant's guilt and indulge all reasonable inferences favorable to the state. State v. Potter, 530 S.W.2d 268, 270(2) (Mo.App. 1975).
Briefly, the evidence was this: Near 9 p. m. on the day involved, an employee of a supermarket located across the street from the burglarized store observed a man in the market who was wearing a dark-colored stocking cap and carrying a transistor radio. A few minutes thereafter a market customer told the employee "she had seen somebody trying to get in that store . . . and asked us to call the police." The market employee immediately went to where he could see into the store which was illuminated with inside lights. The employee saw the same man previously seen in the supermarket trying to get out of the store by prying on its front and side doors with a pry bar. Following this the employee observed the stocking-capped man emerge from the side of the store pushing a power lawnmower. The capped man headed for the rear of the store premises to the vicinity of two parallel fences, one board and one wire. At about this time police arrived. They found a lawnmower and a Vaughn Superbar just inside the entrance between the two fences and discovered defendant trying to negotiate the area inclosed by the fences which was a veritable thicket overgrown with trees, weeds and vines. Defendant was bareheaded and carrying the back plate of a transistor radio. A dark brown stocking cap was found hanging on vegetation in the thicket. A search of the area revealed no unauthorized person but defendant on the premises. The police found all doors and windows to the store locked and summoned a store manager to obtain entrance. One of four glass panes (the bottom one) in the side door had been completely broken out. Most of the broken glass was inside the store on the floor. Fragments of the glass appeared to be stained with blood. Blood was seen on the handle of the lawnmower found at the fences. Defendant had blood and a cut on his hand. The lawnmower and pry bar were store property and had been removed without authorization. The store had been closed and all the doors and windows had been locked at 5 p. m. Pry marks were found on the inside of the front and side doors. The opening made in the side door by the breaking of the bottom glass pane was large enough to permit the removal of the power mower through that opening.
Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence of a breaking in and that the evidence is more consistent with a breaking out which is not the crime charged and is not burglary under our statutes. In other words, defendant is saying that entry without a breaking and a later escape by breaking out does not constitute burglary. State v. Ewing, 298 S.W.2d 439, 444(4) (Mo. 1957). He further suggests there was no competent direct evidence of a burglarious entry if the case be measured by the evidence sans the hearsay testimony of the supermarket employee that a customer told him "she had seen somebody trying to get in that store." This ignores that no objection was made to such testimony and that "(h)earsay evidence, although otherwise inadmissible, when admitted without objection, is in a case for all purposes and may be given its natural and logical probative effect by the trier of the facts." State v. Day, 531 S.W.2d 780, 782(2) (Mo.App. 1975).
There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict. Upon arriving at the store, the police were directed by the supermarket employee to the place where the stocking-capped man seen inside the store had gone with the lawnmower removed from the store. In reaching the location to which they had been directed, the police found the lawnmower, a pry bar also removed from the store, and defendant trying to make his way through the dense thicket between the fences. A dark-colored stocking cap was found in the thicket. No one other than defendant was found in the area. A glass panel in the store's side door had been broken out in such fashion as to indicate the breaking occurred outside the building. There was blood on the broken glass, blood on the handle of the mower, and blood from a cut on defendant's hand. The aperture resulting from the breaking of the glass panel provided a sufficient opening for passage of a power mower which was of such size that it would cut a 19-inch swath. These facts are consistent with the following hypothesis: that defendant was the one who broke the glass panel from the side door and cut himself in so doing; that defendant gained entry into the store through that opening and, unable to pry open another exit, again used the broken panel opening to remove the mower, the pry bar and himself from the store; and that defendant proceeded to the rear of the premises where he abandoned the mower and pry bar and tried to make escape (losing the stocking cap in the process) through the thicket upon arrival of the police. Turner v. State, 267 So.2d 882-883(2) (Fla.App. 1972).
Defendant's second point is that the court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibit No. 1, which we have and which is a drawing of the burglarized premises showing its relation to adjacent streets. Defendant's only objection to the trial court was that the exhibit was not shown to have been drawn to scale and he will be limited to that specific objection upon appeal. State v. Jones, 515 S.W.2d 504, 506(3, 4) (Mo. 1974); State v. Hindman, 543 S.W.2d 278, 284(11) (Mo.App. 1976).
The testimony which was employed to gain entry of the exhibit into evidence was that of the supermarket employee. He testified the exhibit The witness said the drawing would be of assistance to him in describing to the jury what he had seen on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crow, 11394
...that quality. The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. State v. Schneider, 585 S.W.2d 114 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Anderson, 555 S.W.2d 362 (Mo.App.1977). Another point of the defendants is that a new trial should have been granted because the informations were uncertain as to......
-
State v. Sammons, WD32839
...of which is for the jury. State v. Bradley, 515 S.W.2d 826 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Day, 531 S.W.2d 780 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Anderson, 555 S.W.2d 362 (Mo.App.1977). Recognizing his difficulty in the above regard, defendant asks us to nevertheless review his point as "plain error." An appe......
-
State v. Jackson, 46502
...the evidence. In such case the diagrams need not be drawn exactly to scale so long as the jury is not misled. State v. Anderson, 555 S.W.2d 362, 365 (Mo.App.1977). Defendant claims, without recitation of authority, the ex parte protective order and return of service thereon constituted inad......
-
State v. Holt, 11339.
...by the mere presence of an armed officer in the courtroom. We find no such showing. Point relied on V is denied. State v. Anderson, 555 S.W.2d 362, 3657 (Mo.App.1977). Point relied on VI states: "The court erred in failing to sustain defendant's motion for disqualification of judge for the ......