State v. Morse, 9522

• Decision Date: 23 September 1974
• Docket Number: No. 9522,9522
• Citation: 514 S.W.2d 375
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter Eugene MORSE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 375

514 S.W.2d 375

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter Eugene MORSE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9522.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Sept. 23, 1974.

John L. Woodward, Steelville, for defendant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., David Robards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

ROBERT LEE CAMPBELL, Special Judge.

Defendant was tried and convicted on a charge of stealing property over the value of fifty dollars. From a sentence of seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections imposed by the court under the Second Offender Statute, § 556.280, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., defendant appeals. We affirm.

Dr. Phillip Dennis of East St. Louis, Illinois, owned real estate in Phelps County, Missouri. Located upon such real estate was a 70-foot trailer which had been altered into a permanent home. When Dr. Dennis left the trailer on October 3, 1971, to return to East St. Louis, considerable tools and equipment, including a craftsman tool box containing various tools, were located on the porch of the trailer which was securely locked. On October 6, a neighbor boy discovered that the trailer had been broken into and his father called Dr. Dennis. Upon arrival about midnight, Dr. Dennis discovered that the trailer and other structures in the area were on fire. The following day he searched the ashes and found no trace of any tools, including the craftsman tool box and tools. About the middle of October, defendant sold the craftsman tool box and tools to a service station owner. Dr. Dennis identified the tool box containing various tools as the one missing from his trailer.

Defendant raises numerous points on appeal. His chief complaints are that the evidence failed to make a submissible case of stealing and that there was not sufficient evidence of value to sustain a felony conviction of stealing property over the value of fifty dollars.

Defendant argues that the mere possession by appellant of property belonging to another at least ten days after the property had been taken is insufficient to prove any criminal intent on the part of the defendant to steal the tool box and tools. He further argues that the possession by defendant was too remote in time and location from the date and location of the taking to warrant any inference that the property was stolen by defendant. Defendant cites many cases in support of his position many of which are not in point. Defendant cites State v. Sallee, 436 S.W.2d 246 (Mo.1969), for the proposition that 'where there is no other evidence or circumstances whatsoever, pointing to the appellant's guilt, the mere exclusive and unexplained possession is not sufficient to submit the case to a jury.' The Sallee case quotes from State v. Watson, 350 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.1961), as follows: 'It has long been the rule that an inference of guilt is permissible from the possession of property recently stolen in a burglary, and the inference exists both as to the burglary and the stealing. (Citing cases) However, to authorize the inference of guilt, the defendant's possession of the stolen property should not be too remote in point of time from the crime, and it should be a personal possession, exclusive, distinct and conscious, and unexplained.' We hold that the totally unexplained possession of the stolen tool box and tools by defendant approximately ten days after the theft is not too remote in time to support a conviction.

Defendant next argues that the State did not offer any evidence on the value of the tool box and tools. During trial, Dr. Dennis was asked, 'What value as owner do you place on that box of tools as you left them there on...