State v. Colthorp, 53834
| Decision Date | 10 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53834,53834,2 |
| Citation | 437 S.W.2d 75 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bill Louis COLTHORP, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Gene E. Voigts, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., North Kansas City, for respondent.
J. Arnot Hill, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.
Defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree. Sections 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The jury found him guilty as charged and assessed punishment at sixty (60) years imprisonment. Under Supreme Court Rule 27.04, V.A.M.R., the trial court reduced the duration of confinement to 45 years. Defendant has been ably represented, both in the trial court and on this appeal, by experienced members of the staff of the Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City.
The sole issue presented here is defendant's contention the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal offered at te close of the State's evidence. To accept this argument, we would have to conclude as a matter of law that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Supreme Court Rule 26.10. In determining this issue, '* * * the facts in evidence and the favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the state and all evidence and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded.' State v. Watson, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 763, 766(1); State v. Wishom, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 921, 923(1).
David Weinstein owned a liquor store located at 2123 Truman Road in Kansas City, Missouri. The building was on a corner and faced Truman Road. A side door opened on Brooklyn Avenue. A long counter with a gate near the center area extended the length of the store. On August 25, 1967, at approximately 3:15 P.M., Mr. Weinstein was standing behind the counter near the gate. His wife and another employee were also working behind the counter.
Mrs. Weinstein testified she had gone to the front of the counter for a six-pack of beer two customers had ordered. When she turned back, defendant was standing at the counter pointing a double-barreled sawed-off shotgun at her forehead. He said, 'This is a holdup.' In addition to telling the customers to stand still, he told her to get on her kness. As she bent down, she pushed a button of the Mossie Alarm System. It did not make a noise in the store, but signalled a central office from which the police were notified. Defendant said, 'Don't move and I won't hurt you.' Each time she looked up, he told her to look toward the floor. While on her knees she saw a man come through the gate and start toward the cash box. After some eight or ten minutes, her husband came from the rear of the store. Defendant asked, 'Where are you going?' and had him raise his hands. While 'covering' both of them, he backed out of the store. Her husband picked up a gun and ran out the door in pursuit.
Mr. Weinstein testified two men, other than defendant, approached him at the counter. While answering an inquiry of one as to the brand of cigars carried for sale, the second told him it was a holdup, to put up his hands and not make any false moves. One of the two, neither of whom is identified in the record, held a pistol to his neck and told him to open the safe at the rear of the store. He complied and this participant took from the safe the silver drawer, a pistol, a zippered bank bag and blank money orders. Mr. Weinstein, then said, '* * * brandishing the pistol against me again, he went through my pockets and emptied my billfold and case and money clip.' He thought $1,100 was taken. (The information alleged $791.22 in money and property.) This unidentified robber then directed him to the rear of the building and ordered him to open the side door. He complied and this one person stepped out onto Brooklyn Avenue. There is no evidence as to what happened to the second person that had accosted him. Mr. Weinstein pushed an alarm button in the back room and then ran to the front of the store. When within about five feet of where his wife was kneeling, he saw the defendant for the first time with a 'twinbarreled' shotgun pointed across the counter. He testified, '* * * he instructed me to hold still or he was going to blow my brains out * * *' Defendant then backed out the front door, and he gave chase. A police car with two officers arrived.
Both officers testified they saw defendant leave the store with a rug wrapped around the shotgun. He ran along the side of the store on Brooklyn Avenue and into an alley. One of them fired a warning shot and defendant, although not injured, fell to the ground with his arm on the rug and gun. Both officers testified the shotgun was loaded with a shell in each barrel and was cocked for firing when taken from defendant.
It was further developed that there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Norris
...334 S.W.2d 104 (Mo.1960) cited by defendant requires us to do otherwise. State v. Franco, 544 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.banc 1976); State v. Colthorp, 437 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.1969). The defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he was one of two men who stole a welder from a mach......
-
State v. Woodard
...v. Strong, 339 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.1960), State v. Bruton, 383 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.1964), State v. Archer, 328 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.1959), State v. Colthorp, 437 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.1969) and State v. Watson, 350 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.1961). It is the sole prerogative and function of the jury to weigh and evaluate the ......
-
State v. Summers
...v. Strong, 339 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.1960); State v. Bruton, 383 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.1964); State v. Archer, 328 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.1959); State v. Colthorp, 437 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.1969); and State v. Watson, 350 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.1961). Additionally, the jury, and it alone, possessed the power to weigh and evalua......
-
State v. Webb
...to conclude that the evidence, as a matter of law, is insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. Rule 26.10; and State v. Colthorp, 437 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.1969). In ruling upon defendant's second point, the facts in evidence and all favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom ......