State v. Doepke
| Decision Date | 14 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 49036,49036,1 |
| Citation | 361 S.W.2d 689 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Eugene DOEPKE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Taken as submitted by appellant.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., James Wilson Spencer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
By information filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon and, in said information, was also charged under the habitual criminal act with having been priorly convicted of two charges of burglary in the second degree, for which he had been sentenced to and thereafter discharged from imprisonment in the state penitentiary upon due compliance with such sentence. At trial, defendant, in the presence and with the consent of his counsel, and outside the hearing of the jury, admitted the aforesaid prior convictions as pleaded in the information, but announced his desire to stand trial on the merits. After hearing the evidence submitted upon the issue of his guilt of the robbery of which he was charged, the instructions given by the court and the arguments of counsel, he was by the jury found guilty as charged. Following the filing and overruling of his motion for new trial, defendant was sentenced to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections for a term of ten years. He has appealed, but no brief has been filed in his behalf. We, therefore, review the valid assignments of error set forth in his motion for new trial, as required by S.Ct. Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R., and the portions of the record required by S.Ct. Rule 28.02.
The first and second assignments allege error, respectively, in (1) the overruling of defendant's motion for directed verdict filed at the close of the State's case in chief, and (2) the overruling of a like motion filed at the close of all of the evidence in the case. Both assert insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The first was waived by the offering of evidence by defendant following the close of the evidence in behalf of the State. State v. Hutchin, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 701, 702. The second requires a review of the evidence. In determining its sufficiency to support the verdict, we consider as true the evidence favorable to the State and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom; the evidence to the contrary is rejected. State v. Hutchin, supra, loc. cit. 702 [2-4].
The evidence thus reviewed warranted a finding of the following facts:
On November 25, 1960, Mrs. Alma Jung resided with her husband and three sons in a building situate at 11102 Warson Road in St. Louis County, from which building she also operated a confectionery store. Between 1:30 and 2:00 p. m. of that day, when she was alone in the home and engaged in ironing in the living quarters of that building, a man drove up to the side of the building in a red convertible Mercury automobile and stopped 'right in front' of a window about 20 feet distant from her ironing board, enabling her to observe him closely. Thinking him to be a customer, she awaited his entrance into the store. When he rang the entrance bell, she finished the piece she was ironing, walked into the store and asked the man what he wanted. He said, 'Give me your money.' Startled, she asked him to repeat what he said, he looked down at his hand and she then saw that he was holding a revolver in his left hand. He repeated, 'Give me your money.' She asked him if he knew what he was doing. He said, 'Do you want me to use this?' She went to the cash register. A counter then stood between her and the man. Seeing two loaded cartridges in the chamber of the pistol, she opened the register and gave him the bills therein; he declined the 'change'. The bills given him totaled $38.00 and consisted of 1 ten, 2 five, and 18 one dollar bills. He then directed her to lie down upon the floor. She squatted down behind the counter. He insisted that she lie down, saying that he would use the gun if she did not. She did as directed and he walked from the store. She ran into the kitchen and watched him leave in the car. As he left she undertook to get his license number and was able to read all of it except one digit.
During the course of the robbery as above outlined, Mrs. Jung noticed the defendant was about five feet, three or four inches in height, had a pimply complexion, wore a hat like that worn by sailors, khaki pants and a gray jacket, zipped up; his voice sounded like that of a man who had been drinking, but she did not smell any odor of liquor. She reported the matter to the St. Louis County police immediately after defendant drove away. That report was broadcast by the police department's dispatcher at 1:58 p. m. About 3:15 p. m., a police officer of the City of Olivette, riding in a police car, in St. Louis County, who had heard the report and description of the man and the car as given therein, saw defendant driving a red Mercury car such as had been described in the radio report in the 'ninety-four hundred block' of Olive Street Road. He pursued defendant and effected his arrest approximately two miles from Mrs. Jung's store. Upon search of defendant's person, thirty-eight dollars in currency were found in his left front pocket. It consisted of 1 ten, 2 five, and 18 one dollar bills. Ninety-one cents were found in his right front pocket.
Defendant, when arrested, wore a gray jacket with a zipper in front, light gray sport shirt, tan trousers and tan shoes; no hat nor weapon was found. The arresting officer thereupon delivered defendant and the money and papers found upon his person and in the car to a St. Louis County policeman, who took him to the St. Louis County police station. Later the red Mercury car was also taken by the St. Louis County police. That evening defendant and four other men standing alongside him were viewed in a police 'line up' by Mrs. Jung. She there positively identified defendant as the man who drove the red Mercury car to her store and who came into the store robbed her and fled from the store in the Mercury. She also identified the clothing worn by him at the 'line up' as being that worn by him when he committed the robbery. She also identified the red Mercury convertible in which defendant was riding when arrested as being the car in which he drove to and away from her store at the time of the robbery; and she likewise pointed out and identified defendant at the trial as the man who robbed her and identified the clothing then exhibited to her as that worn by defendant at the time of his arrest and as he stood in the 'line up' as being identical with that worn by him during the robbery.
Leroy Mueller, who operated a trucking and hauling business 'next to' Mrs. Jung's store, saw a man theretofore unknown to him drive up in a red Mercury convertible car to Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Richardson, 14614
...to the police following his arrest and the State would not be entitled to refer to his failure or refusal to do so." State v. Doepke, 361 S.W.2d 689, 693 (Mo.1962). To similar effect see State v. Davison, 457 S.W.2d 674, 676 In State v. Butler, 512 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.App.1974), the prosecutor, ......
-
State v. Medley, 51335
...S.W.2d 983; State v. Wilson, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 857; State v. Murray, Mo., 280 S.W.2d 809; State v. Mathews, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 642; State v. Doepke, Mo., 361 S.W.2d 689. The record discloses that defendant was present throughout the trial with his counsel. We have examined those parts of the rec......
-
State v. Schleicher
... ... Defendant did not stand on his motion for acquittal at the close of the state's case. He offered testimony. Therefore, he waived any claim of error of overruling his motion for acquittal at the close of the state's case. State v. Doepke, Mo.Sup., 361 S.W.2d 689, 691(2, 3); State v. McDaniel, Mo.Sup., 392 S.W.2d 310, 314(2, 3) ... In any event, the fingerprint evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury finding of guilt. See State v. Allen, Mo.Sup., 420 S.W.2d 330, 333: 'Proof, however, that fingerprints found in ... ...
-
State v. Davison, 54832
...any statement to the police following his arrest and the State is not entitled to refer to his failure or refusal to do so. State v. Doepke, Mo., 361 S.W.2d 689, 693. However, when a defendant testifies in his own behalf he is liable to cross-examination, contradiction and impeachment the s......