State v. Rist
| Decision Date | 13 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54786,No. 1,54786,1 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 13 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Jack RIST, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Lewis E. Pierce, Robert G. Duncan, Pierce, Duncan & Hill, Kansas City, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal from 5-year sentence, imposed under Second Offender Act, upon jury verdict finding Ronald Jack Rist guilty of burglary in the second degree.
The only point urged on this appeal is the inadequacy of the information upon which appellant was convicted. The information read as follows:
'Thomas O. Pickett, Prosecuting Attorney within and for the County of Grundy and State of Missouri, upon his oath further amended information makes as follows: That one Ronald Jack Rist, on or about the 4th day of January, 1969, in the County of Grundy and State of Missouri, then and there being, did filfully, intentionally, feloniously and on purpose, break into and enter, and aid and abet others in breaking into and entering a building housing P. N. Hirsch & Co., Donald Pitts being the Manager of said establishment, located in the Eastgate Shopping Center in Trenton, Grundy County, Missouri, said building containing goods, wares, merchandise and money, with the intent to steal said goods, wares, merchandise and money located therein, without the consent of the Manager of said P. N. Hirsch & Co., Contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Missouri.'
Appellant charges that the information is fatally defective because it fails to allege the ownership of the portion of the building allegedly burglarized. Appellant cites and relies upon the recent decision of this court in State v. Ford, 403 S.W.2d 611, in which an information charging that the defendant broke into 'the Crossroads Cafe, a building or enclosure in which are kept goods * * *' was held insufficient. In Ford, the court set out the language of many informations which had been found sufficient as against the attack here made. We will not review all of those cases or enumerate them here. It is sufficient to say that, as Ford recognized, Missouri law does require that an information for burglary set out the ownership of the burglarized premises. The reason for this requirement is said to be twofold:
'(1) For the purpose of showing that the house alleged to have been burglarized was not the dwelling of the accused; and (2) for the purpose of so identifying the offense as to protect the accused from a second prosecution for the same offense.' State v. Carey, 318 Mo. 813, 1 S.W.2d 143, 146.
Ford also recognizes that the law of this state is satisfied by an allegation of occupancy or possession of the burglarized premises. State v. Peterson, Mo.Sup., 305 S.W.2d 695, 698; State v. Jeffords, Mo.Sup., 64 S.W.2d 241, 242; State v. Zammar, Mo.Sup., 305 S.W.2d 441, 442.
The allegation here, 'a building housing P. N. Hirsch & Co.,' is the equivalent of an allegation, 'a building occupied by P. N. Hirsch & Co.' The language is as descriptive as the allegations, 'a certain store building located in Marviell * * * being used as a store and operated by Mr. and Mrs. John Sappington.' This language was held sufficient in State v. Jeffords, supra.
The information involved in State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Naylor
...individuals with burgling a "building" or an "inhabitable structure," rather than listing both in the same count. E.g., State v. Rist, 456 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Mo. 1970) (building); Taylor v. State, 497 S.W.3d 342, 351 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (inhabitable structure). And this is no doubt the result o......
-
State v. Lee
...as sufficiently charging ownership, the allegations here cannot come within the scope of even the liberal approach accorded in State v. Rist, Mo., 456 S.W.2d 13; State v. Bell, Mo., 442 S.W.2d 535; and Stanfield v. State, Mo., 442 S.W.2d Nor is it logical to proceed from the fact that certa......
-
State v. Crow, 11394
...The informations referring to a store at a given address, the property of a designated company, were sufficient. State v. Rist, 456 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.1970); State v. Ball, 432 S.W.2d 265 The defendants' next two points concern the effect of the adoption of the new criminal code, effective Janua......
-
State v. Weicht
...not an element of the crime of burglary. The first reason is to show the premises are not the dwelling of the accused. See State v. Rist, 456 S.W.2d 13, 15 (Mo. 1970); State v. Ford, 403 S.W.2d 611, 612 (Mo. 1966). The second reason is to identify the offense as to protect the accused from ......