State v. Minor, 35440
| Decision Date | 09 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 35440,35440 |
| Citation | 531 S.W.2d 101 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Asa MINOR, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Forriss D. Elliott, Richard A. Fredman, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Daniel J. Murphy, Asst. Circuit Atty., Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
By a jury verdict, defendant Asa Minor was found guilty of tampering with a motor vehicle, § 560.175, RSMo. 1969, and was sentenced by the court to three years in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Defendant's first point on appeal is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. This contention is without merit. An appellate court does not weigh the evidence. This is a matter that must be addressed to the trial court who hears the witnesses and is in a position to judge their credibility. State v. Talbert, 454 S.W.2d 1, 4(6) (Mo.1970); State v. Tschirner, 504 S.W.2d 302, 308(17, 18) (Mo.App.1973).
Defendant next contends error was committed by the court in overruling defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. Since this attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction, we briefly review the evidence which was favorable to that conviction.
Two police officers observed defendant loading an automobile seat into a panel truck parked in an alley at 5976 Lalite Avenue in the City of St. Louis. One officer approached the defendant and when he was approximately thirty feet away, defendant looked up and ran. The officer followed in pursuit and caught defendant in the front yard of the premises after a short chase. He only lost sight of the defendant for a second or two when defendant went around the garage. From there, the officer was right behind him all the way to the time he tackled him on the front lawn. Defendant was placed under arrest and brought back to the alley. The officer and his companion officer then obtained permission from the owner of the premises to search the garage and inside found a Ford automobile which had been reported stolen by the owner, Brenda Dunn, three days before. The automobile was being stripped, with parts lying about the garage and a seat and several other parts in the panel truck. Without objection, the officer testified that the parts in the truck were identified by Brenda Dunn as parts from her vehicle. Clothing worn by the defendant that night, including some gloves, was identified and introduced into the evidence.
It is true, as defendant contends, that mere presence at the scene of the crime and flight from the scene are not sufficient in themselves as a basis for a judgment of conviction. State v. Castaldi, 386 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Mo.1965). But presence at the scene of the crime, taken together with other evidence of active participation, will justify a jury in finding a defendant guilty of the crime charged. State v. Staples, 490 S.W.2d 293, 294(2) (Mo.App.1973). Here, defendant was seen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnold, 59894
...is the combination of presence at the scene and flight therefrom. State v. Castaldi, 386 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Mo.1965); State v. Minor, 531 S.W.2d 101, 102(2) (Mo.App.1975). Here the evidence showed the presence of the defendant in the vicinity of the burglary during, or at least shortly after,......
-
State v. Gonzalez-Gongora, GONZALEZ-GONGOR
...is the combination of presence at the scene and flight therefrom. State v. Castaldi, 386 S.W.2d 392, 395 (Mo.1965); State v. Minor, 531 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Mo.App.1975). Defendant is a Cuban who, at time of trial, had been in this country approximately three years and was 31 years old. During ......
-
State v. Harris, WD
...the scene, coupled with other evidence, will sustain a conviction, see State v. Garrett, 566 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.1978), and State v. Minor, 531 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.1975). Participation may be inferred and the evidence need not directly reflect the accused in the act of committing the crime wi......
-
Pickett v. Stockard
...City, 573 S.W.2d 88 (Mo.App.1978) and see Cohen v. Archibald Plumbing and Heating Co., 555 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Minor, 531 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.1975); Strickner v. Brown, 491 S.W.2d 253 (Mo. 1973) and Herrman Lumber Company v. Cox, 521 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.App.1975) as cited in Kregling......