State v. Evans, 37527
| Decision Date | 21 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 37527,37527 |
| Citation | 545 S.W.2d 694 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert Richard EVANS, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Darryl L. Hicks, Warrenton, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Jefferson City, James G. Gregory, Pros. Atty., Montgomery City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and stealing, and sentenced to concurrent prison terms of five and three years respectively. We affirm the judgment.
On appeal, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of probative value to support his conviction. In determining whether a submissible case was made, we view the evidence most favorable to the state and consider favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn from this evidence, rejecting any evidence to the contrary. State v. Gamache, 519 S.W.2d 34, 39(1) (Mo.App.1975).
On August 7, 1974, the Union Electric substation near New Florence in Montgomery County, Missouri was burglarized. Copper wire in the substation was stolen and later sold as scrap to the Becker Metal Company in St. Louis. Defendant Evans was not physically present at the time of the burglary and the theft of the wire. His conviction rested upon his aiding and abetting the commission of the offenses. Prior to the offense, on Friday, August 2, 1974, Larry Peery, one of the persons who actually participated in the burglary and stealing, together with defendant, went to the Union Electric substation for the purported purpose of looking for employment. Defendant told Peery that he had a key to the substation which he had obtained while working for L. E. Meyers, and they discussed taking copper or getting copper wire. The defendant informed Peery that he could get into the place using this key. On the night of August 6, 1974, Peery and two of the defendant's sons went to defendant's house and obtained the key. They used the defendant's truck to go to the substation and there entered with the key and took the wire which they found there at that time. They then went back to the defendant's house and one of the sons returned the key. From there they proceeded to St. Louis where the copper was sold to Becker Metals Corp. Peery received $312.00, each of the two sons received the same amount, and the defendant told Peery that he had received $312.00 from the proceeds of the check. According to Peery, the defendant had participated in discussions with Peery and his two sons concerning the use of the key to obtain entry to Union Electric's substation for the purpose of getting the wire. At that time it was discussed as to how the money was going to be divided and it was decided that it would be divided into four equal parts, one part for the defendant, one part each for each of his sons, and one part for Peery. A search was made of defendant's premises and a check stub from Becker Metals in the amount of $1,237.99 was found there. Wood from the spools of stolen copper was found in the defendant's pickup truck.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rollie
...in the planning of the crime, see State v. Slade, 338 S.W.2d 802 (Mo.1960), State v. Hayes, 262 S.W. 1034 (Mo.1924); State v. Evans, 545 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1976); that it need not be proven defendant was physically present when the offense was committed, see State v. Siekermann, 367 S.W.2d ......
-
State v. Netzer
...to the state and consider favorable inferences to be drawn from this evidence rejecting any evidence to the contrary. State v. Evans, 545 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1976). A summary of the evidence, so viewed, Westlake was originally from Iowa. He had considerable experience with and knowledge of d......
-
State v. Moore, WD
...is so lacking in probative force as not to amount to substantial evidence." State v. Powell, 433 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Mo.1968); State v. Evans, 545 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Rollie, 585 S.W.2d 78, 90 (Mo.App.1979). In State v. Newberry, 605 S.W.2d 117, 118 (Mo.1980), our state Supreme Co......
-
State v. Light, 10695
...from it all probative force. Neither was it suspect or incredible. State v. Harris, 295 S.W.2d 94, 95(2) (Mo.1956); State v. Evans, 545 S.W.2d 694, 695-696(4) (Mo.App.1976). Furthermore, determination of Sederburg's credibility as a witness was for determination by the jury. State v. Martin......