State v. Feeler

Decision Date18 May 1981
Docket NumberNo. 11707,11707
Citation634 S.W.2d 484
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eddie S. FEELER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Henry T. Herschel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jerry W. Venters, Bartlett & Venters, P. C., Jefferson City, for defendant-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

A jury found defendant guilty of stealing two calves and set his punishment at confinement for one year. Defendant was charged as a "persistent offender" under § 558.016, RSMo 1978, and following a "sentencing hearing", § 558.021, RSMo 1978, the trial judge sentenced him to seven years imprisonment.

Defendant's three points contend: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a bill of particulars; and (3) that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence at the sentencing hearing certain exhibits "not duly and properly certified and authenticated"; and the judge erred in sentencing defendant as a persistent offender without making "the findings required by Section 558.021 prior to sentencing".

We initially consider defendant's first point. Defendant did not contend at trial, nor does he here, that the calves were not stolen. Their owner testified that on February 21, 1979, he had twenty calves on his farm located in the northeastern part of Phelps County, Missouri, and on the morning of February 22, 1979, had only sixteen. On February 28, 1979, defendant delivered four calves to be sold at a livestock auction company a mile north of Montgomery City, Missouri. The calves were sold and defendant received payment for them that day. The four calves were later identified as being those missing from the Phelps County farm. There was no other evidence connecting defendant with the theft.

The defendant did not testify. His only witness was his wife. She said that on February 21, 1979, she and defendant were at their home in Vichy, Missouri, all that day and evening. They remained there until the morning of February 22, when they went to her uncle's home in DeSoto, Missouri. They stayed there until they returned home that evening. On February 28, 1979, Lewis Merhoff, her stepfather, and defendant left in defendant's truck to go to the Salem sale barn "to sell some items". They returned about 4:00 or 5:00 p. m. that day.

Defendant's counsel brought out in cross-examination during the state's case that before this trial Lewis Merhoff admitted in court that he stole the calves. How defendant came into possession of the calves was never explained.

Numerous Missouri cases state that "unexplained possession of recently stolen property is a sufficient circumstance to sustain a conviction of stealing the property". State v. Chase, 444 S.W.2d 398, 402-403 (Mo.banc 1969). See also State v. Arnold, 566 S.W.2d 185, 188 (Mo.banc 1978); State v. Lewis, 482 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo.1972); State v. Myers, 551 S.W.2d 312, 313 (Mo.App.1977). Unexplained possession of stolen property ten days after its theft is not too remote in time to support a conviction. State v. Morse, 514 S.W.2d 375, 376 (Mo.App.1974). We think the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Defendant was shown to be in the exclusive possession of the calves six or seven days after their taking and also to have sold them, not at a sale barn close to where he lived but at one approximately 77 highway miles from there and at least 65 miles from where the calves were pastured. Point one is denied.

Defendant's second point contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a bill of particulars because the information insufficiently described the property stolen and the date of such stealing and thus prevented defendant from properly preparing his defense. The body of the motion consisted of one paragraph which stated:

"Comes now defendant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24.03 and moves the Court to direct the filing of a Bill of Particulars for the ground and reason that the information fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense charged sufficiently to prepare his defense."

A motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and its ruling should not be disturbed unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665, 672 (Mo.1961). Defendant here contends that as four calves were taken he should have received a better description of the two calves he was charged with stealing and that the date of stealing was insufficient. The information alleged that "two calves" were taken "on or about February 22, 1979". It is obvious from the evidence that the state had no further information as to the time of the theft to give defendant as the state's witnesses, including the owner of the calves, did not know the exact time the calves were taken. While a better description of the calves might have been available, the defendant does not show how not receiving it prejudiced his defense and as the motion did not set forth how the information was insufficient or what additional facts were sought, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Point two is denied.

Appellant's final point contends in part that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence four exhibits because they were not "duly and properly certified and authenticated". Three of the exhibits are copies of court records, each of which purports to show a separate "Judgment and Sentence" of defendant for committing a prior felony. The remaining exhibit was certified as a part of the records pertaining to defendant in the Classification and Assignment Unit of the Division of Corrections. The conviction records were from circuit courts of this state and were each attested by the circuit clerk and imprinted with the seal of the court. Those exhibits appear to adequately comply with § 490.130, RSMo 1978, and defendant does not explain in his brief why he contends there was not compliance with that section. The court records were properly admitted. State v. Gardner, 600 S.W.2d 614, 620 (Mo.App.1980). The exhibit purporting to be from the records of the Department of Corrections was not objected to before the trial court on the basis now contended and thus there is nothing for us to review pertaining to the admissibility of that document. A point raised on appeal must be based upon the theory of the objection made to the trial court. State v. Lang, 515 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo.1974).

Point three also contends that the trial judge failed to make specific findings, as required by § 558.021(3), RSMo 1978, that there was a basis for an extended term. At the sentencing hearing the state's evidence consisted only of the four exhibits referred to in the preceding paragraph. The defendant presented no evidence. When defendant appeared for sentencing three months after the sentencing hearing the judge stated that at the sentencing hearing he "found" that defendant had been "previously convicted" and that "therefore ... it's the duty and obligation of the Court to fix and determine and pronounce the sentence upon you under those circumstances." No objection was raised that inadequate findings were made or that the court did not have the right to determine the sentence. While better findings could have been made, we think that here the oral announcement was sufficient. There was no conflicting evidence before the judge and he found that he should assess the punishment. He thus obviously found, as the exhibits showed, that defendant had been convicted of at least two felonies committed at different times and not related to the theft of the calves. Under § 558.016, RSMo 1978, this made defendant a persistent offender. The judge's statement "implies specific findings in accordance with the ultimate finding and conclusion stated." State v. Blackwell, 459 S.W.2d 268, 272 (Mo.banc 1970). The judge gave defendant and his trial counsel a chance to speak before assessing the sentence and if either had a complaint about his findings, or lack of them, it should have been presented at that time. Granting allocution affords the defendant an opportunity to raise any infirmities in the sentencing procedure and if he does not do so the matter is not preserved for review. State v. Goforth, 535 S.W.2d 464, 469 (Mo.App.1976). Point three is denied.

The judgment is affirmed.

MAUS, C. J., and FLANIGAN and GREENE, JJ., concur.

TITUS, J., dissents and files dissenting opinion.

BILLINGS, J., concurs in dissent of TITUS, J., and files separate dissenting opinion.

HOGAN, J., dissents, joining in dissent of TITUS, J TITUS, Judge (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which holds the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of stealing.

A person should not be convicted upon an inference of an essential fact. State v. James, 133 Mo.App. 300, 305, 113 S.W. 232, 233(5) (1908). Likewise, no defendant in a criminal case should be compelled to testify against himself (U.S.Const. amend. V; Mo.Const. art. I, § 19) and it violates defendant's privilege against self-incrimination to place him in a position where he must testify to avoid any adverse inferences that may arise from his failure to do so. 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 356, p. 383. Nevertheless, there evolved in time and circumstances beyond our ken, the pronouncement that in connection with a prosecution for larceny, the unexplained possession of property recently stolen may, where the corpus delicti has been established, give rise to a presumption of guilt. Perhaps in the heat of psittacosis, this rule was parroted in Missouri until State v. Swarens, 294 Mo. 139, 154-155, 241 S.W. 934, 939(3) (banc 1922), wherein "inference" was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Roll v. Bowersox
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • August 14, 1998
    ...the court after allocution had been granted, the failure to object was not treated as a waiver of potential errors); State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 487 (Mo.Ct.App.1981). In Missouri courts, allocution is "the formality of the court's inquiring of the prisoner `whether he has any legal cau......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1988
    ...privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, even when the inference is not bolstered by other evidence. State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 490 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Eby, 629 S.W.2d 515, 520 (Mo.App.1981). See also Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (19......
  • State v. Weiler, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 1990
    ...of discretion. State v. Raines, 748 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Hafeli, 715 S.W.2d 524, 527 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665, 672 (Mo.1961). Only in rare cases, not including the present one, are the discovery tools ......
  • State v. Mills, s. 17730
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 24, 1994
    ...particulars will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665, 672 (Mo.1961); State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Mo.App.1981). In reviewing a trial court's ruling for abuse in this regard we know that "[t]he function of such a bill is limited to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 9 901 Requirement of Authentication or Identification
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Evidence Guide Deskbook
    • Invalid date
    ...be a seal . . . shall be received as evidence of the acts or proceedings of such court in any court of this state. See State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 487 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981). But see State v. Cochrane, 899 S.W.2d 162 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) (reversed and remanded sentence as prior offender ......
  • Section 26.45 Time for Filing
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 26 After-Trial Motions
    • Invalid date
    ...State v. Tate, 657 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983); State v. Greenwood, 643 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982); State v. Feeler, 634 S.W.2d 484, 487 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981). A trial court loses jurisdiction to reduce a sentence under Rule 29.05 as soon as it enters judgment and sentence......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT