State v. Ciarelli, 23665
Decision Date | 04 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 23665,23665 |
Citation | 366 S.W.2d 63 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James A. CIARELLI, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Louis Wagner, Kansas City, for appellant.
William A. Collet, Pros. Atty., Don Hutson, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.
Appellant, James A. Ciarelli, was convicted by a jury of the misdemeanor charge of receiving stolen goods in the amount of less than fifty dollars. He was fined $500.00 and sentenced to six months in the Jackson County jail. He has appealed, his sole contention of error being that there was no evidence upon which his conviction could be sustained.
The Courts of Appeals are courts of general appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to the instances specified in the Constitution. Mo.Const., Art. V, Secs. 3, 13, V.A.M.S. Jurisdiction of the appeal from the misdemeanor conviction not involving any of the constitutional grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, is in this court. State v. Harold, 364 Mo. 1052, 271 S.W.2d 527; State v. Bradley, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 351.
According to the evidence, on August 5, 1960, between the hours of 12:00 a. m. and 7:30 a. m., the Lincoln Junior High School, 2102 East 23rd Street, Kansas City, Missouri, was broken into and six fans were stolen. These particular fans were easily identifiable, by size, color, and manufacturer's number. Two of them were marked by stickers stating respectively 'nurse's room' and 'vice-principal's office'. The fans were the property of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri, having been purchased on June 16, 1957, at a cost of $34.04 per fan. Other testimony placed their present value at approximately $5.00 per fan.
On that same day, August 5, 1960, about 4:30 p. m. at about 22nd Street and Paseo in Kansas City, James Worthington, a motorcycle officer of the Kansas City Police Department working at a speed check, observed three men coming out of the weeds near his location. We turn to his testimony concerning what then occurred: 'The point where I sat is on a hill like and I glanced up there and I saw three men in the weeds up there. It is a wooded area at this location. * * * Well, they were coming out of the weeds at the time, * * * and the Park Department had cut the grass in there, so you could see everything that was going on. They had just come out of the weed patch. * * * When I glanced at them, one of them throwed something in the weeds. * * * One of them went back in the weeds (and was not seen again) and two of them continued on toward the car. * * * By the time I got my wheel turned around and stopped they had got in the car and were sitting there. * * * At that time they got out of the car and approached me, and I asked them what they were doing in the weeds and they said, 'Nothing'. * * * I said, 'Well, you must be doing something.' And I said, 'What were you doing?' * * * I said, 'You must have been doing something in there.' They said, 'No; we weren't doing nothing.' And I said, 'Were you dumping cans?' * * * They said 'No'. And, I said, 'What were you doing?' They said, 'Nothing'. I said, 'Well you might as well tell me because I am going to look.' * * * At that time I got off my wheel and started towards the weed where I had last seen them at, and at this location I found four electric fans. * * * I asked them if they knew anything about them, and they said, 'No'.'
Officer Worthington then placed these two men, later identified as Frank Amaro and appellant James A. Ciarelli, under arrest.
The two mean were taken to Police Headquarters and questioned by Officer Schump who testified,
Frank Amaro, who earlier had pleaded guilty to a similar charge, testified on behalf of Ciarelli. Amaro stated he was an employee of Bruno Bonding Company; that he, not Ciarelli, was the one approached by a colored boy about the fans; that he 'called burglary but no one was there'; that he had invited Ciarelli to go along for the ride without telling Ciarelli anything about the fans; that he, not Ciarelli, went into the weeds, located the fans and put them in the car, and that Ciarelli never got out of the car but sat in it reading a newspaper; that he intended to bring the fans to the Police Department but was arrested before he could do so.
On rebuttal, Officer Schump testified he had questioned Ciarelli and Amaro together; that Amaro had stated he had been contacted by Ciarelli about 'some fans hidden out there in the weeds'; that they went there to get these fans; that Ciarelli loaded two of them into his (Amaro's) car just before they were arrested; and that Amaro never mentioned he was approached by a colored boy.
Section 560.270, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., provides: 'Every person who shall buy, or in any way receive, with intent to defraud, any property that shall have been stolen from another, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall, upon conviction, be punished in the same manner and to the same extent as for the stealing of the property so bought or received.'
We proceed to examine the evidence to see if it fails to make a submissible case under the terms of the statute, as defendant contends.
First, is there evidence that the property has been stolen by a person other than the one charged with receiving it? Two witnesses for the State, George Whisonant, assistant custodian, and H. I. Harwell, Principal of Lincoln Junior High testified in detail to the effect that these particular six fans in question belonging to the Kansas City School District were stolen from the school on August 6, 1960. This evidence provides an affirmative answer to the question propounded, and appellant does not seriously contend otherwise.
Second, is there evidence that the person charged received the stolen property? Appellant vigorously asserts there was no proof of possession, physical or otherwise, by him, saying the two fans were found locked in the trunk of another person's car, citing State v. Watson, Mo.Sup., 350 S.W.2d 763; State v. West, 226 Mo.App. 1149, 49 S.W.2d 274; State v. Nelson, Mo.App., 21 S.W.2d 190, and State v. Huff, 317 Mo. 299, 296 S.W. 121. Appellant has overlooked the testimony of Officer Schump who stated that Ciarelli told him that he, Ciarelli, had gone to the place the fans were hidden to get them; that he, Ciarelli, had loaded two of them into the car trunk, and that they, Amaro and Ciarelli, were going...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Simone
...this element may be inferred from certain facts and circumstances.' State v. Hicklin, 358 Mo. 1016, 218 S.W.2d 564, 565; State v. Ciarelli, Mo.App., 366 S.W.2d 63, 67. A jury is permitted to draw from the evidence such reasonable inferences as the evidence will support, State v. Ciarelli, s......
-
State v. Moon
...draw from the evidence such reasonable inferences as the evidence will support. State v. Simone, 416 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.1967); State v. Ciarelli, 366 S.W.2d 63 (Mo.App.1963). The jury was to decide whether defendant was playing a practical joke or whether he actually intended to rob the bank and......
-
State v. Hayes
...this element may be inferred from certain facts and circumstances.' State v. Hicklin, 358 Mo. 1016, 218 S.W.2d 564, 565; State v. Ciarelli, Mo.App., 366 S.W.2d 63, 67." 416 S.W.2D AT 101. 6 Thus, suspicious conduct, deceptive behavior, and false statements to officers can give rise to an in......
-
State v. Wood
...of the element "with intent to defraud." The evidence already summarized would support a finding of that element. See State v. Ciarelli, 366 S.W.2d 63, 67-68 (Mo.App.1963). The judgment is All concur. ...