State v. Leonard

Decision Date01 May 1984
Docket NumberNo. 47523,47523
CitationState v. Leonard, 671 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. App. 1984)
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Allen Winther LEONARD, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Henry B. Robertson, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree, a violation of § 569.020, RSMo.1978, and burglary in the first degree, a violation of § 569.160, RSMo.1978. He was sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment for robbery and ten years for burglary, to be served concurrently. We affirm.

In the evening of September 2, 1982, the victim and friends were playing cards in her St. Louis apartment, which occupies the upper half of a two story duplex. As one guest opened the door to leave, several men forced their way into the residence. One wore a ski mask and brandished a B-B pistol; another was armed with a butcher knife. The intruders took the women's purses. Two men proceeded to the back of the apartment and kicked in the bedroom door. They removed money found on the dresser, a clock and a television.

Police, summoned by a neighbor, arrived while the robbery was in progress. One officer entered the apartment and the other stationed himself behind the building. Two of the intruders threw their masks and the pistol under the buffet, assumed positions at the card table with the ladies, and took up cards. They were immediately arrested.

At the same time, Officer Pizzella, standing outside, heard a noise. He looked up and saw defendant jump from the second floor window, wielding a butcher knife in one hand and a purse in the other. Defendant landed some five feet from the officer. Another man, carrying a camera and a clock, followed him out the window and landed on top of defendant. The other man escaped. However, defendant suffered a broken leg and could only travel ten feet before being apprehended.

The victim was unable to identify defendant. However, Officer Pizzella testified that defendant was, in fact, the man who had jumped from the second floor window.

In his sole point on appeal, defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that this instruction, MAI-CR2d 3.42,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • State v. Berry, 46124
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 1984
    ...tendered. This point has no merit. MAI-CR 3.42 need not be given where there is direct evidence of the crime charged. State v. Leonard, 671 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Mo.App.1984). There was direct evidence of the crime charged in this case. The victim's testimony in this case is direct evidence of t......
  • State v. Ivy
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1986
    ...that the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be given when there is direct evidence of the crime charged. State v. Leonard, 671 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Mo.App.1984). In State v. Berry, 679 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App.1984), this court held that the circumstantial evidence instruction need not be g......
  • State v. Caldwell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 1985
    ...elements of the offense are established by both direct and circumstantial evidence, MAI-CR 2d 3.42 need not be given. State v. Leonard, 671 S.W.2d 365, 366 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Laususe, 588 S.W.2d 719, 721 Defendant overlooks the direct evidence in this case. Three eyewitnesses testified......