State v. Edwards, 46599
| Decision Date | 01 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 46599,46599 |
| Citation | 672 S.W.2d 347 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nathaniel EDWARDS, Appellant. |
David L. Hoven, Ballwin, for appellant.
Kristie L. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
A jury found defendant Nathaniel Edwards guilty of second degree burglary and also of attempting that offense. The trial court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to concurrent ten year prison terms.
Here defendant challenges sufficiency of the evidence to show burglary. He also claims error in permitting the state at trial to amend its information charging unlawful entry for the purpose of stealing to charge attempted burglary.
The state's evidence: In early morning hours defendant and two others entered a vacant adjoining building through its unlocked skylight, and then from the basement broke through a common wall leading to the adjoining liquor store. Police were alerted by sounds from a remote burglar alarm in the liquor store, and then entered the adjoining vacant building. There they found a freshly cut hole in the common wall. In the vacant building they found two unnamed entrants; they also found defendant there lying nearby in a corner, covered by his coat. Nearby police found a chisel and sledge hammer, and loose rock on the floor. There was dust on defendant's clothing.
In weighing the state's evidence we consider as true, favorable evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. State v. Puckett, 611 S.W.2d 242 (Mo.App.1980).
Here, the opened skylight was evidence of a forcible entry; the hole in the basement wall showed an attempt to forcibly enter the liquor store; that the nearby sledge hammer and chisel showed those tools were used to make the hole; defendant's proximity to the tools and hole and his attempt to conceal himself from the police sufficed to show defendant was involved in the attempted burglary.
Comparing convictions in State v. Hawkins, 491 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.App.1973) and State v. Means, 628 S.W.2d 426 (Mo.App.1982) we deny defendant's challenge to sufficiency of the evidence.
Defendant challenges the trial amendment of the state's information from stealing to attempted burglary. See State v. Leake, 608 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1980) holding the test of prejudice from the amendment is whether a defense under the original charge would be equally available after the amendment and whether the defendant's evidence would be equally applicable after the amendment.
In considering whether defendant suffered the loss of his defense that he entered the building to flee assailants and not to burglarize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doolen, 15461
...hamper Doolen in the preparation and presentation of his defense, and since it did not, he was not prejudiced by it. See State v. Edwards, 672 S.W.2d 347 (Mo.App.1984) and Lane v. State, 565 S.W.2d 186 In addition, the variance was not material to the merits of the case. The crime alleged w......