State v. Runyon, No. 43098

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtSNYDER; CRIST, P.J., and REINHARD
Citation619 S.W.2d 955
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary Lee RUNYON, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date11 August 1981
Docket NumberNo. 43098

Page 955

619 S.W.2d 955
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Gary Lee RUNYON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 43098.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 11, 1981.

Page 956

Fredrich J. Cruse, Public Defender, Hannibal, for defendant-appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

SNYDER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of second degree burglary, § 569.170, RSMo 1978. 1 The case was tried by the court without a jury. Appellant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Appellant relies on four points: (1) he argues that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was capable of "acting knowingly" at the time he committed the burglary after he submitted evidence of his intoxicated condition; (2) he contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant's counsel to impeach Officer Shinn's testimony by means of a demonstration which involved a counter in the courtroom as compared to a counter in the store which was burglarized; (3) he asserts the trial court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine him about facts of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes; and (4) he charges he was denied his constitutional rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the trial court denied his application for probation. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was arrested at approximately 3:00 a.m. on March 29, 1979 at the Williams' Package Liquor Store located at 2000 Market Street in the City of Hannibal, Missouri. He was apprehended behind the counter of the store where he was taking cigarette packages from a shelf and placing them in a brown paper bag. The door of the store

Page 957

was ajar and the front door glass was broken.

Additional facts will be discussed when necessary to the consideration of appellant's points relied on.

The appellate court, in reviewing a court-tried criminal conviction, reviews the evidence as though a verdict of guilty had been returned by a jury. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693(1-3) (Mo.App.1978). Rule 27.01(b). The reviewing court determines if there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding, considering as true the evidence most favorable to the state and all favorable inferences stemming from the evidence. Evidence and inferences to the contrary are disregarded. State v. Turnbough, 604 S.W.2d 742, 744(1) (Mo.App.1980).

Appellant first contends the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was capable of "acting knowingly" at the time he committed the burglary after he submitted evidence of his intoxicated condition.

Voluntary intoxication, § 562.076, 2 may be a defense to the crime of second degree burglary, § 569.170, 3 if such intoxication negates the mental state of "acting knowingly," § 562.016, 4 required as an element of the crime. State v. Gullett, 606 S.W.2d 796, 803(1) (Mo.App.1980); State v. Neighbors, 613 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo.App.1980).

Appellant testified that he had been drinking all day and evening on March 28 on the Salt River with Danny Ledbetter and another man who gave him "downers". He could not say how much he had drunk. He stated that his memory faded about midnight and he could not remember how he had gotten back to town or into the liquor store. He could not recall putting the cigarettes in the bag but did remember Officer Shinn standing at the door of the store and the officer's service revolver pointed at his head. He remembered Officer Kolb and Officer Capp, the assisting officers, picking him up from the floor but stated he would not be able to recognize them. He testified that he could not recall anything else until the next morning.

Corporal Ross, who accompanied Officer Shinn at the time of the arrest, and Officer Capp testified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Fanning, Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 25, 1997
    ...be determined from his testimony, evidence of his conduct before the act, the act itself, and his subsequent conduct." State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Mo.App.1981). To do otherwise would unjustly vindicate the voluntarily intoxicated person's unlawful conduct because the person was in......
  • State v. Steffen, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1982
    ...therefrom, and will disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Seaman, 625 S.W.2d 950 (Mo.App.1981) and State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 (Mo.App.1981). See also Rule Under the foregoing, it cannot be concluded that there was a lack of substantial evidence that appellant knew or......
  • State v. Lee, No. WD32776
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 4, 1983
    ...Page 820 To the same effect: State v. Bienkowski, 624 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Helm, supra; State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 Under the evidence in this case, the jury could reasonably find that defendant's intoxication was not of that degree required to constitute a defense under S......
  • State v. Giffin, No. 62775
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 1982
    ...be determined from his testimony, from his conduct before the act, from the act itself, and from his subsequent conduct. State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 (Mo.App.1981). Appellant testified he could not recall the shooting but this "is not conclusive that in his numbed condition he did not fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Fanning, Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 25, 1997
    ...be determined from his testimony, evidence of his conduct before the act, the act itself, and his subsequent conduct." State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Mo.App.1981). To do otherwise would unjustly vindicate the voluntarily intoxicated person's unlawful conduct because the person was in......
  • State v. Steffen, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 21, 1982
    ...therefrom, and will disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Seaman, 625 S.W.2d 950 (Mo.App.1981) and State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 (Mo.App.1981). See also Rule Under the foregoing, it cannot be concluded that there was a lack of substantial evidence that appellant knew or......
  • State v. Lee, No. WD32776
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 4, 1983
    ...Page 820 To the same effect: State v. Bienkowski, 624 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Helm, supra; State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 Under the evidence in this case, the jury could reasonably find that defendant's intoxication was not of that degree required to constitute a defense under S......
  • State v. Giffin, No. 62775
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 1982
    ...be determined from his testimony, from his conduct before the act, from the act itself, and from his subsequent conduct. State v. Runyon, 619 S.W.2d 955 (Mo.App.1981). Appellant testified he could not recall the shooting but this "is not conclusive that in his numbed condition he did not fo......
  • 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