State v. Pollock, WD
| Decision Date | 01 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 738 S.W.2d 531 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mickey Valentine POLLOCK, Appellant. 39000. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Patrick L. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and BERREY and GAITAN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from jury trial convictions of unlawful use of weapon, § 571.030 RSMo 1986, 1 and unlawful possession of a concealable firearm, § 571.070, and sentence to concurrent five-and twelve-year sentences. On appeal, he presents the following points for review: one, that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; and, two, that he was subjected to double jeopardy by being convicted of both unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a concealable firearm.
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, as we must, the facts appear as follows. Defendant was in a two-car collision. The other car was driven by Karl Fitzgerald and occupied by Jeffrey Perkins. Immediately after the collision, defendant threw some whiskey and beer bottles that were in his car into a ditch. He then approached the other vehicle and asked Fitzgerald and Perkins if they were injured. Defendant's knee was injured in the crash and was bleeding.
Officer Emerson McGuire, of the Columbia Police Department, responded to a call to the scene a few minutes after the collision. When he arrived, defendant was lying in an ambulance nearby. Fitzgerald and Perkins sat in Officer McGuire's police car and related information to him for his accident report. After he spoke with Fitzgerald and Perkins, McGuire approached the ambulance. Defendant, who appeared intoxicated, was refusing further assistance from the ambulance attendants. McGuire asked defendant to perform several field sobriety tests. Based on defendant's poor performance on the tests and his appearance and demeanor, Officer McGuire arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated. He handcuffed defendant's hand behind his back and placed him in the patrol car. He did not search defendant before he put him in the car.
McGuire then transported defendant to the Columbia, Missouri, police station. Defendant rode with his legs stretched out across the back seat. As McGuire pulled into the police garage, he heard the links in defendant's handcuffs jingle. He turned on the dome light in the patrol car and turned to look back at defendant. Defendant had a small pistol in his hand. McGuire shouted at defendant and defendant dropped the gun. After McGuire had retrieved the gun from the back seat, he pulled defendant out of the car. Defendant told him, "You should have searched me better."
After he delivered defendant to the police station, McGuire went back to the scene of the accident and searched defendant's car. In the car, he found an empty holster that would fit defendant's gun.
On appeal after conviction, we view the evidence and all inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Guinan, 665 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 227, 83 L.Ed.2d 156 (1984). Defendant argues that the evidence adduced by the state was not sufficient to support his convictions because it was not inconsistent with his defense that he found the gun in the patrol car during the ride to the station.
When the state has relied on circumstantial evidence of guilt, the facts and circumstances shown must be consistent with each other and with defendant's guilt, and must be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. State v. Rodden, 728 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo. banc 1987). Officer McGuire testified that he checked the interior of the patrol car for contraband and weapons before he began his shift on the day defendant was arrested. No one had ridden or sat in the back seat of the patrol car until Fitzgerald and Perkins...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hill, WD
...180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Gordon, 948 S.W.2d at 675; State v. Wilson, 719 S.W.2d 28, 34 (Mo.App.1986). See also State v. Pollock, 738 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Mo.App.1987). In addition, Missouri law has codified the limitations of convictions on multiple offenses if "one offense is included in......
-
State v. Williams, s. WD
...S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), to determine whether a criminal defendant has been subjected to double jeopardy. See State v. Pollock, 738 S.W.2d 531, 532 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Whitehead, 675 S.W.2d 939, 943 (Mo.App.1984). In Blockburger, the Court The applicable rule is that where the sa......
-
State v. Rogers, 50615
...in all respects is affirmed. KAROHL, P.J., and SMITH, J., concur. 1 See State v. Pruitt, 741 S.W.2d 118 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Pollock, 738 S.W.2d 531 (Mo.App.1987); Hayman v. State, 736 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Mills, 735 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Moton, 733 S.W.2d 449 ......
-
Wright v. State, WD
...The fact that there is some overlapping evidence does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. In State v. Pollock, 738 S.W.2d 531, 532-33 (Mo.App.1987), the defendants convictions for unlawful use of a weapon and unlawful possession of a concealable firearm were upheld after ap......