State v. Ruff, 42347

Decision Date23 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 42347,42347
Citation618 S.W.2d 722
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glenn RUFF, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Timothy Braun, Circuit Public Defender, St. Charles, for appellant.

John Aschcroft, Atty. Gen., Mark W. Comley, Kristie Green, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Jess Mueller, Pros. Atty., Troy, for respondent.

CRIST, Presiding Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm without malice aforethought. The defendant waived his right to a jury. We affirm.

Ruff claims the verdict was not supported by the evidence in that the court failed to take into account the evidence of self-defense and defense of another. In a court tried criminal case the court's finding has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Hence, we will affirm that finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Mo.App.1978). We accept the state's evidence, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, as true and ignore evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Hager, 577 S.W.2d 188, 188-9 (Mo.App.1979). Accordingly, we recite the following facts in support of the verdict.

Ruff and his wife, Sharon, rented a second floor apartment from Harold and Edna Whitlock, who lived downstairs in the building's other apartment. Ruff had paid his rent for the month at the time of the assault, but Ruff decided to move before the month was over. Sharon quarrelled with Harold and Edna around 2:30 p. m. on the day of the assault. At that time Sharon told Harold she would bring her husband back "to work him over."

Shortly thereafter, Harold put a new padlock on the door to Ruff's apartment in a dispute over a water bill. When the Ruffs arrived around 6:30 that evening to remove their last furnishings, they discovered the lock. Ruff kicked and pounded on the Whitlocks' door demanding Harold remove the new padlock or he would kill him. Harold then removed the padlock and the Ruffs removed the last of their possessions. When Harold asked for the key to the apartment, Ruff demanded the rent for the remainder of the month, about $12.00.

This argument became heated and moved from threats to violence. Ruff struck Harold with a screwdriver several times. When the two men began to struggle over the screwdriver, Sharon joined in, grabbing Harold from the rear and beating him. At this point, a passing motorist stopped, but failing to stop the struggle by suggestion, went to get the police. About the same time, Edna announced she had called the police. The assailants fled but were soon apprehended.

Harold was bleeding from wounds on his chin and chest. He was treated at the Lincoln County Hospital's Emergency Room, but against doctor's advice refused to be admitted.

Harold was then 62 years old and about five feet four inches tall. He had several recent operations and wore a back brace. The only physical reference to Ruff in the record characterizes him as a young man.

A person is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm without malice aforethought under § 559.190, RSMo. 1978, if he assaults another with intent to kill or do great bodily harm. State v. Rose, 346 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Mo.1961). As essential element of proof, therefore, is whether the defendant committed the assault with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. O'Connell, 68668
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1987
    ...defendant waives trial by jury, the findings of the court have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Rule 27.02(b); State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1981). On review, we accept as true the evidence supporting the verdict, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom and ign......
  • State v. Johnston, 13367
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Abril 1984
    ...731, 733 (Mo.App.1977), but only to determine whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1981), we hold the evidence in appellant's case sufficient to support the trial court's finding of guilty. Accordingly, appellan......
  • State v. Giffin, 62775
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Octubre 1982
    ...by a jury. If there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court, its judgment is to be affirmed. State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1978). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case after a verdict ......
  • State v. Isom, 44969
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Noviembre 1983
    ...therefrom, disregarding evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1981). Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the record disclosed that the shooting occurred at the victim's home while and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT