State v. Counts, 47543
| Decision Date | 09 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47543,47543 |
| Citation | 671 S.W.2d 818 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Timothy COUNTS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Donald J. Hager, Public Defender, Farmington, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Timothy Counts, defendant herein, was convicted, after a jury trial, of stealing without consent. § 570.030, RSMo (1978). He was sentenced to one year in the St. Francois County jail. On appeal he alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the court erred in overruling his objection to allegedly improper argument by the prosecuting attorney. We affirm.
In testing the sufficiency of the evidence, facts and appropriate inferences intelligently drawn therefrom must be assessed in a light most favorable to the verdict and all adverse inferences and evidence disregarded. Review is limited to whether a submissible case was presented to the jury. State v. Doebert, 659 S.W.2d 280, 281 (Mo.App.1983). When, as here, the State's case is based on circumstantial evidence, the facts and circumstances relied upon to establish guilt must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of defendant's guilt. The facts and circumstances must also be inconsistent with and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. But the circumstances need not be absolutely conclusive of guilt or demonstrate impossibility of innocence, and the mere existence of other possible hypotheses is not enough to remove the case from the jury. Id. at 282.
Within this standard of review, we now consider the evidence. Some time late at night on November 10, 1982, or early in the morning of November 11, 1982, lumber and other materials having a value of over $150 were stolen from the Jennings Lumber Company in Farmington, Missouri. At about 11 o'clock that night Marion Carl left work and walked to his apartment about a block away. On his way he saw defendant standing by a white flatbed truck belonging to defendant's father in a lot across the street from Carl's place of employment and about a block from Jennings Lumber. About fifteen to twenty minutes after Carl arrived home, defendant came to the apartment and stayed about five or six minutes. While there, defendant said that he was waiting for his father. After defendant left, Carl saw the white truck leave the place where it was parked and drive around the block to a store named Leadbelt Auto. As the truck neared Leadbelt Auto its headlights were turned off. The truck then backed up to the store. Carl testified that he thought there were three people in the truck at the time, although he was not certain. Leadbelt Auto either adjoins or is one lot away from Jennings Lumber's storage area. Carl then telephoned the police at about 12:10 a.m. Ten to fifteen minutes later Carl heard a voice coming from the direction of the truck say, "There goes a cop, let's get out of here." The truck then drove away. While it had been parked, Carl testified, he saw two pairs of feet from under the truck and saw no one exit the driver's door.
At 12:21 an Officer Giessing was dispatched to Leadbelt Auto in response to Carl's call. On his way he saw defendant's father's truck loaded with lumber driving from the direction of the store. After hearing that no truck was found at Leadbelt Auto, he stopped defendant's father's truck. The time was about 12:25 to 12:30. There were three people in the truck--defendant, his father, and his uncle. Because the theft from Jennings Lumber had not yet been discovered, Giessing allowed the truck to leave.
The truck was next placed at the farm of Harold Smith. Smith testified that early in the morning of November 11, 1982, defendant's father came to his door and asked permission to leave some lumber at Smith's farm. The reason given for the request was that two tires had blown out on defendant's father's truck. Smith's farm is about two and a half miles south of Bismarck, Missouri on Highway N. The property left at Smith's was that which was stolen from Jennings Lumber.
The truck was next stopped farther north on Highway N about three-quarters of a mile from Bismarck. The same three occupants were in it. There were no visible indications that the truck had had any mechanical problems. The three were then arrested and brought back to Farmington. Upon being questioned by the Farmington police, defendant said the lumber had been purchased in St. Louis.
On appeal defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that he had the purpose of promoting the offense or that he acted with anyone in committing it. He concedes there was sufficient evidence to support a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Isaiah, s. WD
...broad discretion in controlling closing arguments and determining the propriety of remarks made during such arguments. State v. Counts, 671 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Mo.App.1984). Relief is rarely granted on the basis of plain error for matters included in closing argument. State v. Hatcher, 835 S.W......
-
State v. Hatcher, WD
...of reasonable doubt; they did not misdefine reasonable doubt or imply a burden less than that employed by law. See State v. Counts, 671 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Mo.App.1984). In the argument in the case at bar the prosecutor was telling the jury that the state had met its burden. Mr. Hatcher's Poin......
-
State v. Gobble, 47444
...and the mere existence of other possible hypotheses is not enough to remove the case from the jury. Id. at 282. State v. Timothy Counts, 671 S.W.2d 818 (Mo.App.1984). See also State v. Prier, 634 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Mo. banc 1982). Within this standard of review, we now consider the evidence, ......
-
State v. Adkins
...by failing to grant a mistrial. The trial court has broad discretion in allowing or rejecting arguments of counsel. State v. Counts, 671 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Mo.App.1984). Its rulings will be reversed only when the argument is plainly unwarranted and the defendant can establish that the argumen......