State v. Lugar, 33709.
| Decision Date | 11 July 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 33709.,33709. |
| Citation | 84 S.W.2d 614 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LUGAR. |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Frank Landwehr, Judge.
William Lugar was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Paul Dillon, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Frank W. Hayes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
COOLEY, Commissioner.
By information filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis defendant was charged with burglary in the second degree for having broken into the office of Dr. Jule T. Elz in said city with intent to commit larceny therein. Upon trial he was convicted, and his punishment was by the jury assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From sentence and judgment on the verdict he appeals.
Dr. Elz maintained a suite of offices on the second floor of a 3-story building located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gravois avenue, an east and west street, and Jefferson avenue, a north and south street. Adjacent to that building there is a 2-story building, with flat roof, having, as we understand the record, frontages on both Gravois and Jefferson avenues. North of and adjacent to the 2-story building on Jefferson avenue is a 1-story building, and north of that an areaway some 15 feet wide. North of the areaway is another building.
At the time in question the areaway was inclosed on two sides by the walls of the adjacent buildings, said to be 10 to 15 feet in height, and at front and rear by fences some 12 feet high, in which there were gates. It was used as a storage or parking place for automobiles.
The state's evidence tends to prove that at about 12:45 on the morning of April 22, 1932, the attention of two police officers, Meyers and Eilers, was called by some person to something he had seen or heard at the 3-story building above mentioned. The officers were then near the building. Approaching it, they saw a man run from it across the top of the 2-story building, slide down a smokestack to the roof of the adjacent 1-story building, run thence across the roof of that building toward the areaway, where he disappeared, as though he had jumped down into the areaway. They immediately effected entrance into the areaway through another building, the door of which they had to break, found defendant in an automobile which was parked in the areaway, and arrested him. A search was made of the 3-story building and the adjacent buildings. No other person was found in or about them. The officers found that Dr. Elz's office had been broken into. A transom over one outer door had been smashed in and the glass was scattered over the floor of the room. Two doors opening into the hall were open. They had been left closed, and the transom was intact when Dr. Elz left his office the evening before. Indications were observed showing that the intruder had opened the door of Dr. Elz's instrument cabinet and pulled out the drawers of cabinets and desks in the offices. Some of the cabinet drawers had evidently been pushed back hastily and roughly, as they were off the slides on which they operated. "Pry marks" were visible on some of the desk drawers, indicating that they had been pried open. Dr. Elz was unable to say what, if anything, had been taken, except that a pair of bandage scissors was gone. He had not used them for some time and could not say just when they had disappeared from his office. A pair of scissors which he testified looked like those he had had in his office was found on the roof of the 2-story building under a window at the end of the hall upon which the office doors opened. The window was found open when the officers searched. Through it a person could easily have gained access to the hall from the roof of the 2-story building or passed from the hall to the roof. In the basement of the 3-story building an inner door leading into the drug store which occupied the lower part of the building was found to have been "partly jimmied." It was also discovered that above the roof of the 1-story building a window of the business college which occupied the second story of the 2-story building had been forced open. The screen had been pried off and was found nearby on the roof of the 1-story building and near it were found a pair of long pliers and a 4 or 5 pound hammer. It is not shown whether or not anything was disturbed within the business college; nor does it appear that any stolen articles were found upon defendant's person or in his possession; in fact, except for the scissors, it is not shown that Dr. Elz missed anything from his office.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whitaker
...be found, and frequently can only be found, from the attendant circumstances and must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. State v. Lugar, Mo.Sup., 84 S.W.2d 614. If a person breaks and enters a house intending to steal, he is not exonerated from the commission of burglary merely because ......
-
State v. Peterson
...Law Sec. 625, p. 956) and constitute flight (State v. Silvey, Mo., 296 S.W. 128) and the evidence was admissible against him. State v. Lugar, Mo., 84 S.W.2d 614; State v. Ash, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 808. Another crucial fact issue was whether the appellant's automobile was out of gasoline as he an......
-
State v. Farris
...he was frightened away before he carried out his intent * * *.' 9 Am.Jur., Burglary, Sec. 27, pp. 254, 255.' Likewise, in State v. Lugar, Mo.Sup., 84 S.W.2d 614, 616, we said: 'The intent with which an act is done may be found, often can only be found, from the attendant circumstances.' See......
-
Lee v. State
...be found, and frequently can only be found, from the attendant circumstances and must ordinarily be inferred from the facts. State v. Lugar, Mo.Sup., 84 S.W.2d 614. If a person breaks and enters a house intending to steal, he is not exonerated from the commission of burglary merely because ......