State v. Celmars, 32108
| Decision Date | 18 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 32108,32108 |
| Citation | 399 S.W.2d 145 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James L. CELMARS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
J. B. Mackler, Kramer, Chused & Kramer, Samuel H. Liberman, II, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Lawrence J. Lee, Pros. Atty., James I. Bucher, Allen I. Harris, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
BRADY, Commissioner.
This cause was tried in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction upon an information which alleged the defendant unlawfully and intentionally stole sixteen cartons of cigarettes of the value of $48.00 from Allied Super Markets, Inc., a corporation doing business as Bettendorf-Rapp. A jury was waived and upon conclusion of the trial the court entered its verdict and judgment finding the defendant guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of $250.00 and to serve six months in the workhouse. The defendant contends the judgment should be reversed for the reason that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed. In our opinion this contention is determinative of this appeal and the statement of facts which follows will be limited to those facts bearing upon this issue.
The evidence was that a Mrs. Bixler, one of the employees at the store, saw the defendant walking around inside the store and noticed that in spite of the fact it was a warm June day he was wearing a suit coat and a topcoat. She saw the defendant walk out through the check-out counter without purchasing anything. This occurred shortly before 5:00 o'clock. She got off work at 5:00 and her husband picked her up at the store. As she was riding in an automobile down the street, this witness saw the defendant on a parking lot across the street from a Katz drug store which was located about 50 feet from the Bettendorf store. This was about 5 minutes after she saw the defendant leave the store. On this occasion she observed that cartons of cigarettes were sticking out of his suit pocket.
The arresting officer stated that at approximately 5:17 that afternoon which, as close as this record allows us to place it, was about twelve minutes after the employee last observed the defendant, he saw the defendant on the Katz parking lot looking around and walking around the lot in a manner the officer thought suspicious. He also described defendant's manner as if he was attempting to determine if there was anybody in the vicinity. The officer was of the opinion the defendant was hiding something and drove over to the lot upon which the defendant was then standing and told him, 'Get whatever you are hiding from behind there.' The defendant and the police officer then walked about ten feet to the rear of a store where the defendant lifted up a large piece of cardboard under which were sixteen cartons of cigarettes. Several of the cartons were in a large paper bag having the word 'Bettendorf' on it. The officer asked the defendant where he got the cigarettes and the defendant stated that he had purchased them from a friend named Amos Johnson for $20.00. The officer testified that Mrs. Bixler had told him that she saw the defendant with some cartons of cigarettes in his pocket but that he did not have a bag. When the officer asked the defendant about the bag, the defendant stated that it came with the cigarettes from Amos Johnson. The officer also testified that the defendant told him that Amos Johnson put the cigarettes under the cardboard and told the defendant where to find them. The officer first took the defendant into the Katz drug store and then took him to the Bettendorf store to see the manager.
Other testimony pertinent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...to the benefit of all reasonable inferences. State v. Wiley, 522 S.W.2d 281 at 293 (Mo. banc 1975). Appellant cites State v. Celmars, 399 S.W.2d 145 (Mo.App.1966) for the proposition that the state must show that property was stolen as part of the corpus delicti. This is established law. Ho......
-
State v. Purvis, KCD
...setting the fire with the intent that 'the place' burn, and the defendant's 'agency in the production of that act.' State v. Celmars, 399 S.W.2d 145, 147(1) (Mo.App.1966); State v. Varnell, 316 Mo. 169, 289 S.W. 844, 845(3) The question remains as to what affect, if any, his change of heart......
-
State v. Frentzel, WD
...S.W.2d at 46; State v. Hawkins, 165 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Mo.1942); State v. Summers, 506 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Mo.App.1974), and State v. Celmars, 399 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Mo.App.1966). State v. Easley, 515 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Mo.App.1974), holds that evidence of the corpus delicti need not precede the defen......
-
State v. Johnston, 13367
...(Mo.1964); State v. Hawkins, 165 S.W.2d 644, 646[6, 7] (Mo.1942); State v. Summers, 506 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Celmars, 399 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Mo.App.1966). Proof of the corpus delicti need not include proof of the defendant's connection with the crime charged, State v. Wood, 5......