State v. Norman, 40076
| Decision Date | 07 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 40076,40076 |
| Citation | 586 S.W.2d 45 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert NORMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Hampe, St. Louis, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Brenda Farr Engel, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Edward J. Rogers, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
After a jury-waived trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods and sentenced him to a term of three years imprisonment.
Upon appeal, defendant claims the state failed to prove that he received the stolen goods and that he had knowledge at the time of the receipt of the goods that such goods were stolen. We disagree. Defendant's statements to the police together with the surrounding circumstances establish the necessary elements of the offense of receiving stolen goods.
A confidential informant telephoned the police at 8:00 p. m. on February 10, 1977 to relate that three individuals in a white, 1973 Buick with the license # PG3636 were selling typewriters in the area of Taylor Street and Delmar Boulevard, a commercial district of the City of St. Louis. Two plain-clothes police officers were dispatched to the area in an unmarked vehicle and arrived at about 8:15 p. m.
Defendant was standing near the rear of his automobile with the trunk open. He was holding a typewriter. Defendant placed the typewriter on the curb of the sidewalk. When police approached, they discovered another typewriter, a postage scale, and another item of office equipment in the defendant's automobile trunk and three rolls of copper wiring next to the automobile. The police questioned the defendant and two other persons who had been seated in the automobile when the police first approached, and Miranda rights were then read. Defendant then asked to speak privately with one of the officers.
In response to defendant's request to speak privately with the police, the police interviewed defendant as he sat in the rear of the police vehicle. Defendant told police he did not want to be blamed for what he feared were stolen items and that, because he did not want to be involved in a burglary, he would tell them what he knew about the property.
Defendant related that the other two suspects and a third person came to his house at 8:00 p. m. with the office equipment and asked defendant if he knew someone who would be interested in buying the property. Defendant told them he did. Some of the equipment was loaded into defendant's automobile, and the remainder was placed in his basement.
After receiving this information, the police went to defendant's home where additional office equipment was discovered. Police observed a business card from the Kaemmerlin Electric Company in one of the items of office equipment. The police went to Kaemmerlin Electric Company and ascertained that the property in question had been stolen during a burglary committed earlier in the evening. Defendant was arrested after the burglary was confirmed.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain defendant's conviction, we must consider the facts and the favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state. All facts and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded. State v. Trask, 581 S.W.2d 417, 418(1-2) (Mo.App.1979).
The essential elements of the offense of receiving stolen property are: (1) the accused must have received the property in some way from another rather than being the actual captor of the property; (2) the property is stolen property at the time of reception; (3) the accused has guilty knowledge the property was stolen at the time of reception; and (4) the accused must have received the property with a fraudulent or criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montgomery, 10981
...was stolen at the time of reception; (4) the accused must receive the property with a fraudulent or criminal intent. State v. Norman, 586 S.W.2d 45, 47(1) (Mo.App.1979); State v. Inman, 578 S.W.2d 336, 337 (Mo.App.1979). It is defendant's position that the evidence fails to show element (1)......
-
State v. Stanback
...the property in some way from another rather than having been the actual captor of the property." Defendant's reliance on State v. Norman, 586 S.W.2d 45 (Mo.App.1979) also is misplaced. In Norman, this court stated the rule that one accused of receiving stolen property must have acquired it......
-
State v. Supinski, WD
...that the defendant knew the materials were stolen through evidence of the method chosen to dispose of the property. State v. Norman, 586 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Mo.App.1979). A witness for the prosecution, Wally Eaton, who was employed by Mid-Missouri Auto Salvage as a wrecker driver and mechanic, t......
-
State v. Williams, WD
... ... State v. Dittman, 569 S.W.2d 363, 364(1) (Mo.App.1978); State v. Norman, 586 S.W.2d 45, 47(2, 3) (Mo.App.1979). The new § 570.080-when the accusation charges a disposal of stolen property-can require no more. 1 ... ...