State v. Reid

• Decision Date: 14 June 1965
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 50984,50984,2
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clotelle Jo Ann REID, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 200

391 S.W.2d 200

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clotelle Jo Ann REID, Appellant.

No. 50984.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 14, 1965.

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Robert V. Groce, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, for respondent.

Louis Wagner, Kansas City, for appellant.

EAGER, Presiding Judge.

Defendant was charged by amended information with stealing merchandise of a value of more than $50 and with a prior felony conviction. After being found guilty by a jury, and after the court had found a prior felony conviction, she was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a term of five years.

On the afternoon of March 20, 1963, Robert Holman, a buyer in the men's department of Patterson's Department Store in Sedalia, noticed two women looking through the men's suits; one was rather tall with red hair, the other short and rather heavy; both were negroes. The shorter one was positively identified at the trial as this defendant. Upon inquiry, these women stated that they were 'just looking around.' They then wanted to 'see some shirts'; Holman made three trips to another room to bring and show them shirts. He testified: 'I saw I was getting nowhere with shirts, so I just quit * * *.' At times he was gone for three or four minutes, looking up sizes, etc. He later waited on another customer while the women were still in the suit department, and he was away for perhaps six or seven minutes. Soon after he came back and 'stayed with them' they left that section, but stopped at the sport coat department; by that time Holman was waiting on other customers. He later saw them stop at the tie rack and still later, go out the door. These women made no purchases. About two or three minutes after they left Holman missed a sport coat which a man had been examining shortly before; he then missed some slacks. With the help of James Reed, an employee from a store nearby, he got the Kansas license number of a 1958 white Cadillac which was leaving the alley at the side of the Patterson Store and then called the police. Holman positively identified a suit and six ties produced in evidence as articles missing from the store on that day; these specific articles he valued at $85, but he further testified that a sport coat and two pairs of slacks, also missing, were valued at $68.40. It would appear from the evidence that two more men's suits were also missing, but this is not really material. Holman also testified that the women were together in the store most of the time, and that they were there probably forty-five minutes.

Two other employees saw these women in the store together; one saw them 'going through the suits' hanging in the men's department; both saw them leave the store together and turn left toward the alley. One of these witnesses noticed that the taller woman had 'bloomers' hanging down below her coat and that they appeared to have something 'stuffed in them.' The other witness saw the two outside as they left the store and testified that when they reached the corner of the alley some clothing fell from under the coat of one of them--'dark garments * * * like men's clothing.' This latter witness went immediately into the store to report to Mr. Holman what she had seen. She testified that the clothing which she saw fell from the person of the 'other woman that was with this lady,'--the one who was tall with red hair, later identified as Bertha Ramsey.

James Reed, a college student, who, at the time in question, was employed in a jewelry store nearby, had gone into Patterson's to pay a bill, and saw the two women looking at suits and sport coats; he thought he recognized them from some prior incident, spoke to Holman about them (all of which came in without objection) and went on upstairs and paid his bill. When he came back down he noticed the two leaving the store and followed them; he saw them walk to the alley and enter the alley, and he also saw a white Cadillac pull into the alley and stop, whereupon the two women got into it. He described these persons as negro women, one tall with red hair, the other of medium height and heavy set. Reed then went back into the store, reported to Holman what he had seen, and helped him get the license number of the car as it left the alley.

The Warrensburg police stopped the car later on Highway 50, following receipt of a message from the Pettis County Sheriff; they took the three to the police station where they were merely held in the Chief's office until the Pettis County officers came for them. According to the arresting officer, defendant was driving the car when it was stopped; he testified that on the way to the station 'both' of the women told him that since there were no charges against them in Warrensburg 'how about us giving you some money and letting you forget about it?' He then specifically testified that the defendant offered to give him money. He thought that the amount mentioned was either $100 or $200. At the station the two women asked that he leave their companion in the car, as he had 'bad sugar diabetes'; the women were taken into the station and as this officer came back outside he saw this man, Raymond Grant, coming from the trunk of the Cadillac with something wrapped in a bedspread; watching, he saw the man walk to a sort of alleyway beside a car lot and place the bundle behind an air conditioner. He then took the man into the police station and investigated the contents of the bundle, but left it there until the Pettis County officers arrived. It contained items heretofore referred to as coming from the Patterson store, including suits, a sports jacket, and ties. The Warrensburg officer specifically identified various articles as exhibits at the trial. The Pettis County officers traced the custody of the articles introduced in evidence from the spot on the ground in Warrensburg to the time of trial.

No witness testified that he or she saw defendant take anything from the store, or saw any of these articles on defendant's person or in her personal possession. Raymond Grant testified: that he was in Sedalia to see a cousin, that he met these two women (whom he knew) and asked them for a ride to Kansas City; that he sat in the car alone for awhile, and later the Ramsey woman 'begged' him to bring the car up the street, which he did; that the two women were then standing on a corner by the alley; that he drove into the alley, and they got in; that he drove off and kept going through alleys until he could do so no longer, whereupon he drove south to a blacktop road, west to Highway No. 127, and north to U. S. Highway 50 where one of the women took over the driving; that somewhere on Highway 50 they were stopped by the police; that outside the police station the Ramsey woman gave him the car keys and told him 'to take some stuff out of the back of the trunk, which I did do,' and put it over 'in a lot'; that he did not see who put the bundle in the car. He identified the bedspread in which the clothing was found. He was allowed to testify, without objection, that he had pleaded guilty to stealing over $50 and had received a sentence of two years. He had apparently seen both of the women at the back of the car in the alley at Sedalia. It is difficult to construct a very coherent story from this witness' testimony. Some of the clothing had been returned to Patterson's store before the trial. Certain other features of the evidence will be mentioned in the body of this opinion.

We have some doubt of the validity of any assignment in the motion for new trial as to the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction, but have determined to consider this. The actual contention now made is that no concert of action was shown between this defendant and the other two persons or either of them, nor was it shown that defendant took anything from the store, or had any of the goods in her possession or under her control; that her mere presence is all that was shown. Counsel cites no authority on this point except constitutional provisions on due process, loosely interjected. The sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence for conviction is a totally different thing from a lack of due process arising from an unfair trial. Our sole question is whether this evidence was sufficient to permit a finding that defendant was acting in concert with one or both of the others with a common intent, and was aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime (Section 556.170 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.), subject, of course, to the requirements of the instruction given on circumstantial evidence. The evidence here abundantly proves that the crime of stealing merchandise worth more than $50 was committed by one, two, or all of the three persons.

Stolen articles of clothing were seen to drop from the person of Bertha Ramsey, and she gave Grant the car keys and told him to take the 'stuff' out of the trunk; that woman was also wearing 'bloomers' which appeared to be stuffed with something (shades of State v. Green, Mo., 292 S.W.2d 283). The two women were together at substantially all times within the store and they were both seen looking through the men's suits. They stopped together at the sport coats and at the tie rack; they left the store together after about forty-five minutes, and were together when the articles fell from Ramsey's person; both were wearing coats; they entered the alley together, stood at the trunk of the car together, and entered the car together. Neither made a purchase in the store. They road together through the alleys and on a roundabout way to Highway 50 at a point east of Warrensburg. There was specific evidence that this defendant offered money to the police officer at Warrensburg as a bribe for letting them go; also that, when apprehended, she was driving the car. Under these circumstances, we hold that the jury was entitled to find, if it so chose, that the defendant was acting in concert with Bertha Ramsey in...