State v. Davis
Decision Date | 20 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 11150,11150 |
Citation | 590 S.W.2d 418 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Wyatt DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Teresa Aloi Angle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Briney, Welborn, Briney, Welborn & Spain, P. C., Bloomfield, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Wyatt Davis was convicted by a Butler County jury of receiving stolen property (§ 560.270, RSMo 1969) and his punishment fixed at 60 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. He contends the evidence failed to establish his knowledge that the property was stolen when he received the same and therefore the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict. We affirm.
The necessary elements of the offense of receiving stolen property are as follows: (a) the property must be received in some way from another person; (b) the property at the time of reception must be stolen property; (c) the receiver, at the time of the reception, must have guilty knowledge that it is stolen property; and, (d) the accused must have received the property with a fraudulent or criminal intent. State v. Inman, 578 S.W.2d 336 (Mo.App.1979). Defendant avers element (c) finds no support in the evidence and argues that his possession of the stolen goods cannot supply the element of guilty knowledge.
The rule is clear in this state that, while an unexplained possession of recently stolen property can give rise to an inference that the possessor is the thief (State v. Dobson, 303 S.W.2d 650 (Mo.1957)), an inference cannot be drawn that the possessor of stolen goods received the property from another (State v. Armstrong, 555 S.W.2d 640 (Mo.App.1977)) in a prosecution under § 560.270, RSMo 1969. State v. Johnson, 580 S.W.2d 254, 259 (Mo. banc 1979).
Missouri decisions have held that the guilty knowledge, required in a case of receiving stolen property, requires knowledge on the part of the accused of the stolen character of the goods at the time he receives them. " This means actual knowledge must be proved and found, not mere negligence in failing to know, not what a reasonably prudent man might know or believe, not facts which would put a reasonably prudent man on guard, although of course the knowledge which defendant possessed may be shown by circumstances." State v. Taylor, 422 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Mo.1968). However, as stated in State v. Simone, 416 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.1967): 416 S.W.2d at 101. Thus, suspicious conduct, deceptive behavior, and false statements to officers can give rise to an inference of guilty knowledge by a defendant. State v. Eggleston, 27 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.1930).
With the foregoing principles to guide us, we recast the evidence and all favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state, disregarding contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Webb, 544 S.W.2d 53 (Mo.App.1976).
Mingo Job Corps Center is a United States Vocational and Educational facility, near Puxico, Missouri, that trains young men in various skills. Defendant had been employed at the Center as a resident advisor and night watchman at least since September 1975. In his capacity as night watchman his duties included the caring for and the safekeeping of government property. Many items used at Mingo were obtained through the General Services Administration (GSA) and bore GSA numbers.
In February 1977 the Director of Mingo Job Corps Center, John Young, saw a post in the defendant's yard...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hayes
...deceptive behavior, and false statements to officers can give rise to an inference of guilty knowledge by a defendant. State v. Davis, 590 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Eggleston, 27 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.1930). Likewise, the necessary element of fraudulent or criminal intent can be infer......
-
State v. Montgomery, 10981
...from another (State v. Armstrong, 555 S.W.2d 640 (Mo.App.1977)), in a prosecution under § 560.270 RSMo. 1969." State v. Davis, 590 S.W.2d 418 (Mo.App.1979) (No. 11150, So.Dist.). To similar effect see State v. Inman, supra, 578 S.W.2d at 338(5); State v. Magers, 452 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.1970......
-
State v. Davis, 61988.
...Montgomery, 591 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Mo.App.1979), and "the property must be received in some way from another person ..." State v. Davis, 590 S.W.2d 418, 419 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Inman, 578 S.W.2d 336, 337 (Mo. App.1979); State v. Armstrong, 555 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.1977). It is an essen......
-
State v. Jackson, 10876
...that it is stolen property and (d) the receiver must have received the property with a fraudulent or criminal intent. State v. Davis, 590 S.W.2d 418, 419(1) (Mo.App.1979); State v. Armstrong, 555 S.W.2d 640, 642(1) (Mo.App.1977). However, if the accused "is a principal actor in the theft th......