State v. McGowan
| Citation | 432 S.W.2d 262 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 53353,No. 1,53353,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George McGOWAN, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, C. H. Parsons, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dexter, for respondent.
James A. Bell, St. Louis, for George McGowan.
The defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree which is a felony under § 560.070 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. The defendant stipulated that he had previously been convicted of a felony, robbery in the first degree, and pursuant to § 556.280, the court assessed the punishment and sentenced the defendant to a term of three years in the custody of the Department of Corrections of the State of Missouri. The defendant contends on this appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the trial court erred in refusing to give three instructions offered by him. The defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel at his trial and the same counsel represents him on appeal. The defendant did not take the stand but in his behalf a witness identified certain photographs and measurements he had taken of the premises.
Substantial evidence introduced by the state tended to prove these facts in support of the verdict. At the time in question, Jack Wilhelm owned and operated the Sudsy-Dudsy Laundromat in leased premises at 2731 Goodfellow in the City of St. Louis. The building in which the business was conducted is on the northwest corner of Goodfellow and Maffitt; the entrance is on Goodfellow facing east. The laundromat occupied the south side of the ground floor and the rest of the ground floor on the north was occupied by the Fresno Cleaners except for a corridor in the rear of the building which was a part of the laundromat. In addition to the entrance door, there was a plate glass window in the front of the laundromat. A row of chairs and a table were along the south wall. Twenty washing machines were aligned along the north wall. Along an interior partition or wall separating the front and back rooms, there was a row of eleven dryers. The washing appliances were coin operated and coin boxes were attached. In the wall separating the laundromat from the cleaning establishment next door, there was a door which was always kept locked. A door in the interior wall or partition led from the front room to a room behind the dryers. This back room extended the width of the laundry and north in the form of a corridor behind the cleaning establishment.
In the rear exterior wall of the premises occupied by the laundromat, there were two barred windows, and at the north end of the corridor behind the Fresno Cleaners, there was a window which was boarded up and nailed shut. There were two openings which served as ventilators in the interior wall or partition between the front and back rooms. The ventilators were a little more than eight feet from the floor and were installed to carry off the heat generated by the dryers.
On October 26, 1966, Mr. Wilhelm left the laundry at about 4:30 p.m. while it was still open for business. An employee, George Carodine, remained on duty and closed the laundry at the usual time of 9:30 p.m. Mr. Carodine testified that he checked all the doors and windows and found them to be locked and secured. He locked the door between the front and back room and left by the front door locking it after him. All of the lights in the laundromat were left burning. Shortly after midnight, Thomas Rooks, on duty as a detective of the St. Louis Police Department, was driving west on Maffitt and as he turned north into Goodfellow he saw a man later identified as the defendant drop from one of the ventilators onto the floor of the front room of the laundromat. The officer parked his car, crossed Goodfellow, and took a position where he could observe the defendant through the front window. He watched the defendant for three or four minutes, saw his face and observed that the defendant was wearing khaki colored clothing and dark shoes. After coming out of the ventilator, the defendant went to the door between the front and back rooms and pulled at the lock. He then crouched down and went to the north wall between the laundromat and the adjoining cleaning establishment. An alarm was set off at this time and the defendant ran back to the ventilator, stepped upon a bench, jumped and pulled himself up and through the ventilator. Officer Rooks ran around to the rear of the building and found the defendant in an areaway behind the laundromat. The officer was joined almost immediately by two other policemen who assisted in the arrest and took custody of the defendant.
Mr. Wilhelm was notified and when he returned to the laundry about 2 a.m. on October 27, he found the front door locked but the boards had been removed from the rear window at the north end of the corridor; the window had been pried up and was open. The grille or covering for the opening which was the south ventilator was knocked out of place and was lying on the floor in front of the dryers. Some of the metal cabling above the dryers had been bent. Tools and other items used by the employee Carodine were strewn on the floor in the back room.
The defendant complains in particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neal, 57861
...adequately covered by Instructions 3, 4, 5, and 7, and the court was thus justified in refusing the requested instruction. State v. McGowan, 432 S.W.2d 262 (Mo.1968). See also State v. Taylor, 472 S.W.2d 395 State v. Smith, 358 Mo. 1, 212 S.W.2d 787 (1948); State v. Tomlin, 467 S.W.2d 918 (......
-
State v. Currie
...court fully and fairly covered the substance of defendant's converse. The converse, therefore, was properly refused. State v. McGowan, Mo., 432 S.W.2d 262, 264(2). Judgment is DOWD, C.J., and McMILLIAN, J., concur. ...