State v. Jerelds, 44455
| Decision Date | 04 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 44455,44455 |
| Citation | 637 S.W.2d 80 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glenn L. JERELDS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Norbert M. Reker, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Priscilla Gunn, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of second degree burglary, a violation of § 569.170 RSMo. 1978. The court sentenced him as a persistent offender to a term of ten years with the Department of Corrections. We affirm.
At approximately 10:30 p. m. on August 14, 1980, two police officers were on routine patrol in an unmarked car on Laclede Avenue in the City of St. Louis. At that time, they saw an automobile parked on one side of the street with its lights off move forward, make a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the street. Two young black males, one of them identified as defendant, were observed departing from the automobile. They crossed the street, walked down a gangway and disappeared behind a fence.
The officers parked their patrol car and by the use of binoculars observed the area where the men had last been seen. They heard the sound of glass breaking and soon two young black males emerged from behind the fence, carrying various items of personal property. They walked quickly to the car, placed the property in the trunk and back seat, and reentered the car. Still with its lights off, the car backed slowly up the street, at which time the police intercepted and apprehended them. Defendant was seated on the passenger side of the car. Behind the fence, the officers found the sliding glass door to an apartment at 2913 Laclede broken. The living room was in disarray and dresser drawers on the second floor were opened. The tenant was contacted and identified the property in the car as belonging to her.
Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for burglary. All of the elements of a burglary case may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Durham, 367 S.W.2d 619 (Mo.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 861, 84 S.Ct. 130, 11 L.Ed.2d 89. When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances and the facts must be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis of guilt, be inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence and point so clearly to guilt to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cummings
...court "cannot reverse a defendant's conviction because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence." State v. Jerelds , 637 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982). "The weight of the evidence is for the jury in the first instance, and may be considered by the trial court in ruling on the ......
-
State v. Smith, WD
...supra, at 518. Similarly, all of the elements of a burglary case may be established by circumstantial evidence. State v. Jerelds, 637 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Mo.App.1982). Here, the prosecutor clearly established the incendiary origin of the fire at the Thrifty Nickel by direct testimony. Contrary t......
-
State v. Grayson, 45229
...reasonable hypothesis of innocence; however, the circumstances and facts need not prove the impossibility of innocence. State v. Jerelds, 637 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Mo.App.1982). At 12:29 p.m. on Sunday, October 12, 1980, police officers Klein and Rulo responded to a burglar alarm at 2115 Locust, t......
-
State v. Cook, 49298
...guilt, and they must be inconsistent with the innocence and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. State v. Jerelds, 637 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Mo.App.1982). The circumstances need not be absolutely conclusive of guilt and need not demonstrate the impossibility of innocence. State v.......