State v. Ruff, No. 42347
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CRIST |
| Citation | 618 S.W.2d 722 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glenn RUFF, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 42347 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1981 |
Page 722
v.
Glenn RUFF, Appellant.
Page 723
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."
Page 724
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 continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Connell, No. 68668
...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, No. 13367
...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, No. 62775
...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, No. 44969
...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 Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the record disclosed that the shooting occurred at the victim's home while defendant Page 741......
-
State v. O'Connell, No. 68668
...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, No. 13367
...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, No. 62775
...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, No. 44969
...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 Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the record disclosed that the shooting occurred at the victim's home while defendant Page 741......