State v. Parker, KCD
| Decision Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 535 S.W.2d 126 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cleophus PARKER, Defendant-Appellant. 27961. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, R. William Boemker, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Douglas G. Mooney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before DIXON, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
Defendant was charged by information with both second degree burglary and stealing. He was acquitted of the stealing charge, but the jury found him guilty of burglary. The jury was unable to assess punishment, and defendant was sentenced by the court to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
The crime occurred at the residence of Kathryn Gale. She had lived in the house about five weeks. Before her occupancy, it was vacant for an unspecified period of time. On the night the crime occurred, she locked her house and left for work at about 7:10 p.m. When in the early morning hours she returned, a light she had left off was burning. Inside the house she found trash in the hallway and drawers had been pulled out. Two television sets, a clock radio, cash and some jewelry were missing. The back door appeared to have been used by someone to gain entry. Glass was broken out in the lower left-hand portion of the door. Some items from the house were seattered in the backyard.
Glen R. Redmond, a Kansas City Police Department evidence technician, was dispatched to the victim's home. He investigated within the residence and performed a procedure designed to lift latent fingerprints from surfaces within the house. He was successful in procuring five cards of latent fingerprints. One of the cards consisted of prints lifted from the inside of the glass in the rear door of the house, just above a hole in the glass. Redmond also lifted prints from the outside of the door glass, from a gold can found on the bed in the master bedroom and from a checkbook box.
He dusted for prints on all door facings, door frames, dresser drawers that had been pulled out and objects that had been taken out of the drawers, but was unsuccessful in acquiring any additional prints. He did not perform any procedures to locate prints on objects in the backyard.
At trial, William Green, a Kansas City Police Department fingerprint technician, testified that he examined the card of latent fingerprints lifted from the inside of the back door glass and compared that card with an inked fingerprint card bearing the impressions of defendant. He found a print on the inside of the door glass to be the same as the right middle finger impression of defendant. He found sixteen points of similarity and no points of dissimilarity between the two fingerprints. No other fingerprints were identified as defendant's.
Defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the burglary and stealing. He was arrested over six months after the occurrence of the offense and could not by that time recall where he was on the night the crime occurred. He said that to his knowledge he never was inside the Gale residence nor did he steal anything from it. He did not know how his fingerprints could have been left on the door glass. None of the items taken from the house were proved to have been in his possession, and none were recovered from him. Aside from the fingerprint, no other evidence linked defendant to this crime. Such fingerprint evidence is sufficient proof of identity to sustain a conviction. State v. Simmons, 528 S.W.2d 8 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Lane, 497 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App.1973); State v. Schleicher, 442 S.W.2d 19 (Mo.1969); State v. Gray, 504 S.W.2d 825 (Mo.App.1974).
Defendant assigns as error the trial court's acceptance of the jury verdict in which he was found guilty of burglary but acquitted of the stealing charge. The claim is that such a verdict is inherently contradictory and unsupported by substantial evidence. Defendant argues that the evidence established that both a burglary and a stealing took place. The two offenses, he says, are so tied that acquittal on one charge required a finding that there was not substantial evidence to support the conviction on the other charge.
Defendant was prosecuted for both offenses under RSMo 560.110, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Butler
...recited by the dissent, to weigh and credit the expert's testimony in any respect which may have been contradictory. State v. Parker, 535 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Mo. App. 1976)(where the defendant claimed the fingerprint technician's testimony was Like the doctors in Callahan, Ms. Duvenci testifie......
-
State v. Grim
...State v. Sanders, 619 S.W.2d 344 (Mo.App.1981) (burglary); State v. Clemmons, 579 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App.1979) (tampering); State v. Parker, 535 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App.1976) As to the charge of first degree burglary, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) Mr. Grim knowingly entered ......
-
State v. Hulbert, WD
...sufficient to make a submissible case. State v. Thomas, supra; State v. Clemmons, 579 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Parker, 535 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Arnold, 534 S.W.2d 836 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Lane, 497 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App.1973). He claims, though, that the evidenc......
-
State v. Rogers, 39704
...667 (Mo.App.1977). Also, the fingerprint evidence here was sufficient proof of identity to sustain defendant' conviction. State v. Parker, 535 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Ivery, 534 S.W.2d 107 Judgment affirmed. REINHARD, P. J., and CRIST, J., concur. ...