State v. Lake, 48336
| Decision Date | 26 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 48336,48336 |
| Citation | 686 S.W.2d 19 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Percy Lewis LAKE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James S. McKay, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Robert P. McCulloch, Asst. Pros. Atty., Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of burglar tools. The appeal involves three questions. First, whether the trial court erred in allowing the use of appellant's prior convictions in the state's case-in-chief. Second, whether the trial court erred in allowing the use of the co-defendant's prior convictions and arrests. Third, whether the state's evidence was insufficient. We reverse.
The evidence adduced at trial showed that at approximately 1:00 a.m. on July 14, 1983, Ms. Jackie Kremer, a resident of the Sierra Vista apartment complex, observed a van parked in the cul de sac outside her building. Ms. Kremer observed a man get out of the van and walk around the side of her building. She summoned the police once the man disappeared from her sight. After the call, the man returned to the van. The police arrived a few minutes later.
Officer Lawrence O'Toole of the St. Louis County Police was the first to respond to the call. Upon arrival, Officer O'Toole approached the van and asked appellant and a second man, James Graham, for identification. A record check revealed that there was a warrant for burglary out on Graham.
A subsequent search of the van was conducted. Among the things found in the van were a pry bar, screwdrivers, gloves, a flashlight, a wire tester and several tire tools. A search was conducted of the area but there was no indication that a burglary had occurred or had been attempted.
At trial, appellant testified that he had been at his brother's house in the City of St. Louis when Graham arrived and asked him to drive him to St. Louis County because Graham had no driver's license. Appellant agreed. During their travels, the two got lost and headed into Riaza Square. The van was running hot so appellant pulled to the end of the cul de sac and parked. Graham left the van and returned without informing appellant why he left or where he went. The police arrived shortly thereafter.
In disposing of this appeal, we need only address appellant's third contention that the state's evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of possession of burglar's tools. Specifically, the state has failed to prove that appellant had the intent to use these tools for such unlawful purposes.
Section 569.180, RSMo 1978 defines the crime of possession of burglar's tools as follows:
A person commits the crime of possession of burglar's tools if he possesses any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into premises, with a purpose to use or knowledge that some person has the purpose of using the same in making an unlawful forcible entry into a building or inhabitable structure or a room thereof.
Thus, the state was required to prove that (1) appellant was in possession of the tools found in the van driven by him, (2) these tools were the type "adapted, designed or commonly used" in burglary related offenses; and (3) appellant had either the intent to use these tools for such unlawful purposes or the knowledge that his co-defendant would put the tools to such use. We quickly dispose of the first two elements.
First, in order to convict appellant of possession of burglar's tools, the state must establish that appellant had legal possession. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. MacDonald, 86-017
...Iowa 432, 435-36, 107 N.W.2d 238, 240 (1961). Also the State need not link the defendant to any past or future burglary. State v. Lake, 686 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Mo..App.1984); Conaway supra. The intent that must be established is a general intent to use the tools for a burglarious purpose, whenev......
-
State v. Frentzel, 14032
...tools to make a forcible entry into a building or inhabitable structure or a room thereof. Section 569.180.1, RSMo 1978; State v. Lake, 686 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Adkins, 678 S.W.2d 855, 860 (Mo.App.1984). The requisite mens rea is not shown by the mere possession of everyday......
-
State v. Brown, No. 23601.
...passenger's seat, open and within Brown's reach, with a pair of bolt cutters visibly sticking out of the backpack. See State v. Lake, 686 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984) (holding that "the jury could conclude that [defendant] had possession of the tools. The tools were on the floor of the v......
-
State v. Ford
...While these tools may be legitimate in and of themselves, they can be used for illegitimate uses. Id. (quoting State v. Lake, 686 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Mo.App. E.D.1984)). The evidence showed that someone had unlawfully entered the Funeral Home, broke a basement window, de-activated the alarm, ope......