State v. Roper, Nos. 56768
| Decision Date | 05 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 56768,58916 |
| Citation | 819 S.W.2d 384 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nathan ROPER, Appellant. Nathan ROPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Deborah B. Wafer, Cheryl Rafert, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Joseph P. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of second degree felony murder, armed criminal action, and robbery in the first degree and the two consecutive life imprisonment sentences and concurrent thirty year imprisonment sentence imposed by the court on defendant as a prior and persistent offender. We affirm. 1
The evidence clearly established that Cornelius Bridges shot and killed Jeanine Balsamo near Talayna's restaurant while robbing her of her purse. See State v. Bridges, 810 S.W.2d 682 (Mo.App.1991). At the time of that killing defendant was in the company of Bridges. Defendant first contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation in the robbery. Defendant was charged as an aider and abettor under § 562.041(2) R.S.Mo.1986. Under that statute a person is held to be criminally responsible for another's actions when either before or during the offense a person aids or attempts to aid the other in planning or committing an offense. Presence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Oliver, 791 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App.1990) [18-21]. Presence coupled with other evidence such as flight or companionship before and after the crime has been held sufficient. Id. In State v. Townsend, 810 S.W.2d 726 (Mo.App.1991) we upheld the conviction of the defendant who was with the principal for two hours before and throughout the offense and who silently stood by the principal during commission of the crime and remained with him afterwards. We characterized the defendant's role as a show of force.
Defendant was with Bridges for several hours before the crime. He had suggested that Bridges take the murder weapon with him to Talayna's and knew Bridges had the weapon. Bridges had said in defendant's presence that he was going to make a "hustle" meaning a robbery. Defendant himself indicated in Talayna's the intention of "ripping off a white bitch". When Balsamo and her companion left the restaurant they stopped momentarily at the exit. Defendant and Bridges and a third man accompanying them also stopped and appeared to be stalling in their exit. When Balsamo finally exited, defendant and Bridges followed her to her car. In doing so defendant inferred to the third man that they were going to commit a crime against Balsamo and her companion.
When they were close to the Balsamo vehicle Bridges went to the driver's side and grabbed Balsamo's purse before she could close the door. Defendant took up a position seven or eight feet from the passenger door and stared at the passenger. After the shooting both defendant and Bridges ran from the scene and entered the automobile being driven by the third man. When they subsequently entered Bridges' residence defendant was carrying Balsamo's purse. The money found in the purse was divided between Bridges, defendant and the third man. At the house defendant expressed his displeasure at not having been able to take the fur coat worn by the passenger. In his statement to the police defendant admitted that he was aware that Bridges was going to rob Balsamo but had not gone with Bridges to the scene and had not participated in the robbery. The jury was free to accept that portion of the statement that the defendant was aware of the intent to rob and reject defendant's denial of participation.
The evidence establishes considerably more than mere presence by defendant at the scene. It is quite logical to infer that he was aware of Bridges' plans to rob Balsamo, that he was part of that plan and that he participated in the robbery, and that that participation included his presence as a "show of force". The evidence here of defendant's participation in the robbery is substantially stronger than that in the Townsend case, supra, which we held sufficient to support the conviction.
Defendant next premises error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Skelton, s. 18671
...insufficient to support a conviction under the above statue. State v. Daniels, 861 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Mo.App.E.D.1993); State v. Roper, 819 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo.App.E.D.1991). However, the statute does not require that an accused personally perform each of the acts constituting the elements of......
-
State v. Kobel, WD
...of the crime, flight after the crime, and association with others before, during or after commission of the crime. State v. Roper, 819 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Mo.App.1991); Gaines, 807 S.W.2d at 679. Each of these indicia are present Thus, the evidence was that the two vehicles arrived together in......
-
State v. Levesque, 63470
...before, during, and after the commission of the crime." State v. Forister, 823 S.W.2d 504, 508 (Mo.App.1992); See also, State v. Roper, 819 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo.App.1991). Here, sufficient evidence exists to support the submission of the instruction to the jury. Johnson and Defendant were bo......
-
State v. Daniels, s. 60230
...an offense." Section 562.041(2) RSMo 1986. Presence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction under this theory. State v. Roper, 819 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Mo.App.1991). However, presence coupled with other incriminating evidence can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id.; State v. Oliver......