State v. Lewis, 39628
| Decision Date | 12 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 39628,39628 |
| Citation | 576 S.W.2d 564 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leon LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Three |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David M. Johnson, Hayes & Heisler, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Gregory W. Schroeder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Courtney Goodman, Jr., Pros. Atty., Michael W. Flynn, Asst. Pros. Atty., Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for second degree burglary and stealing. Under the Second Offender Act the court assessed his punishment at seven years imprisonment for burglary and five years for stealing, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in two instances: (1) in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, because the state failed to make a submissible case; and (2) in admitting over defendant's objection hearsay evidence that the Harris Cab stand was dealing in stolen property. We affirm.
On the evening of September 15, 1976, Dr. and Mrs. Maurice Collins returned home after dining out and discovered that their home had been burglarized and ransacked. They noted that a color T.V., fur stole, camera, silver candlesticks, and several other items had been stolen.
At approximately 9:20 p. m. that same evening, Detectives Dehntjer and Jablonski of the St. Louis Police Department had a Harris Cab stand under surveillance when they observed a car carrying three men approach the cab stand, discharge one rider, and then park. When the discharged rider returned from the cab stand building, the defendant got out of the car and proceeded to the trunk where he handed the other man a set of keys. After opening the trunk, these two men began to remove shopping bags from the car. At that time the two detectives approached the car, identified themselves as police officers, and observed the defendant return his bag to the trunk and step back from the trunk. The officers noted a fur stole in one of the bags, several other items in the trunk, and a T.V. set in the back seat of the car. When questioned as to the ownership of these items, all three of these men denied knowing anything about the property. After these men and the property were taken to the police station, all but four items of property three tire-tools and a pair of gloves were identified by Mrs. Collins as having been taken from her home.
Defendant denied to the officers that he had any knowledge of the stolen property and claimed that he had not arrived at the cab stand with the others. Other than being apprehended as described above, there was no other tangible evidence linking the defendant to the scene of the crime.
At trial, when asked why he and his partner were conducting a surveillance of the Harris Cab stand, Detective Dehntjer testified, over objection, "We received information from our Intelligence Unit advising us that the Harris Cab stand was dealing in stolen property and gambling." Defendant's objection to the question on the basis of relevancy was overruled, as was defendant's objection to the answer as hearsay.
In his first point on appeal, defendant asserts that the court should have granted his motion for directed verdict of acquittal, because the state showed only Joint possession of recently stolen property, which is not, by itself, sufficient to support a conviction for the stealing of that property. State v. Farmer, 490 S.W.2d 72 (Mo.1973); State v. Watson, 350 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.1961); State v. Potter, 560 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1977). Our review of defendant's contention requires us to consider whether on the basis of the evidence offered a jury could reasonably have found defendant guilty, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Thompkins, 515 S.W.2d 808, 812 (Mo.App.1974).
If joint rather than exclusive possession is shown, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brooks
...70, 73 (Mo.1972); State v. Barnes, 345 S.W.2d 130, 131-32 (Mo.1961); State v. Bright, 269 S.W.2d 615, 623 (Mo.1954); State v. Lewis, 576 S.W.2d 564, 566-67 (Mo.App.1978). Under this rule the triers of fact can be provided a portrayal of the events in question, more likely to serve the ends ......
-
State v. Leach, 12502
...in addition to the inference raised by the joint possession. State v. Jones, 610 S.W.2d 396, 398(1) (Mo.App.1980); State v. Lewis, 576 S.W.2d 564, 566(2) (Mo.App.1978); State v. Pruett, 522 S.W.2d 823, 824(2) (Mo.App.1975). Even if defendant offers an explanation as to his possession, and e......
-
State v. Richardson, WD
...conduct. Admitting the police officer's testimony to explain subsequent police conduct is permissible in this case. State v. Lewis, 576 S.W.2d 564, 566-567 (Mo.App.1978). Appellant's second point on appeal is denied. The judgment is 1 Citing to State v. Schlagel, 490 S.W.2d 81 (Mo.1973); St......
-
State v. Giannini, 41223.
...of the matters asserted, but to explain police conduct, see State v. McRoberts, 485 S.W.2d 70, 72-734 (Mo. 1972); State v. Lewis, 576 S.W.2d 564, 5664 (Mo.App. 1978); and State v. Green, 575 S.W.2d 211, 2124 (Mo.App. ...