State v. Smith
| Citation | 527 S.W.2d 731 |
| Decision Date | 09 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 36551,36551 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaimtiff-Respondent, v. Samuel Joseph SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Kent Fanning, James C. Jones, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Timothy Verhagen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant, Samuel Joseph Smith, was convicted of stealing from a dwelling house. §§ 560.156, 560.161, RSMo 1969. Subsequent to the guilty verdict returned by the jury, and upon determining the defendant had a prior conviction, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to six years imprisonment.
On May 6, 1974 Mrs. Gertrude Jones, who resided in a duplex at 1906 North Euclid, St. Louis, Missouri, returned home from work to find the lock on her kitchen-basement door severed and her television set and portable radio missing.
Mr. William Robinson, Jr., who lived next to Mrs. Jones in the duplex, had arrived home at 3:00 p.m. on that day, shortly before Mrs. Jones, and had encountered the defendant who was leaving by way of Mr. Robinson's gate. Defendant was carrying a television set in a shopping bag, and said to Mr. Robinson, "Nothing happened to you, did; nothing happened to you." After first checking on his family and his own side of the duplex, Mr. Robinson discovered Mrs. Jones' back door was open. Mr. robinson instructed his children to call the police while he attempted to follow the defendant in his car. Mr. Robinson found the defendant had not walked very far and pulled his car alongside of him, inquiring about where the defendant got the television. Defendant answered that someone had given it to him, but when Mr. Robinson repeated his question, the defendant threw the television into Mr. Robinson's car through an open window. Mr. Robinson returned home with the television. He found Mrs. Jones had arrived home, whereupon she identified the set as belonging to her. Mr. Robinson then accompanied a police officer in a search for the defendant. Three blocks away the defendant was found and arrested.
On appeal, the defendant contends two reversible errors were committed by the trial court. First, defendant asserts the court below erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence due to the insufficiency of the evidence. Defendant claims the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant entered the premises of Mrs. Jones and removed her television set.
Initially we note that upon a motion for judgment of acquittal the facts in evidence and all favorable inferences reasonably drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the state, and all contrary evidence and inferences should be disregarded. State v. Jordan, 495 S.W.2d 717, 719(1) (Mo.App.1973). Moreover, direct evidence is not necessary; circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of the circumstantial evidence is consistent with a hypothesis of defendant's guilt and inconsistent with a hypothesis of his innocence. State v. Cox, 508 S.W.2d 716, 721(1) (Mo.App.1974).
The defendant was seen leaving the yard adjoining Mrs. Jones' home, carrying a television which Mrs. Jones positively identified as belonging to her. Defendant uttered an incriminating statement to Mr. Robinson and when confronted by Mr. Robinson's inquiry about where the defendant had gotten the television, defendant threw the set into Mr. Robinson's car. The evidence in this case, therefore, unlike the cases cited by defendant for support (State v. Favell, 411 S.W.2d 245 (Mo.App.1967); State v. Walker, 365 S.W.2d 597 (Mo.1963)), shows more than a mere presence of the defendant at the scene of the crime and an opportunity to have committed the offense. An inference of guilt is clearly permissible from possession of property recently stolen. State v. Holmes, 434 S.W.2d 555, 558(4) (Mo.1968).
Additionally, it is well established that a reviewing court should not determine whether the charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt since that is an issue for the jury. State v. Smith, 377 S.W.2d 241, 244(2) (Mo.1964). Thus the evidence relating to finding Mrs. Jones' television set in defendant's possession, defendant's suspicious statement and actions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mayes, 45051
...determine whether a charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; that is the function of the jury in this state. State v. Smith, 527 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1975). Nevertheless, our scope of review of a conviction in the trial courts of this state does extend to a determination of whet......
-
State v. Ball
... ... That the phrase of beyond a shadow of a doubt is meaningless in the law. You all realize that?" ... It is not the prerogative of counsel to inform the jury as to the law. State v. Smith, 422 S.W.2d 50, 68 (Mo.banc 1967). It is improper for counsel to attempt to define "reasonable doubt." State v. Van, 543 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Mo.App. 1976); State v. Sanders, 541 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Mo.App. 1976); State v. Sanders, 539 S.W.2d 458, 464 (Mo.App. 1976); State v. Belleville, 530 S.W.2d 392, ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...has been abused resulting in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Kimmins, 514 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Mo.App.1974)...." State v. Smith, 527 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1975). This is precisely what the prosecuting attorney did in that part of his closing argument above set forth. In State v. Ball, su......
-
State v. Hemphill, 40993.
...prosecutor's comment and we, therefore, find no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for new trial. State v. Smith, 527 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Mo.App.1975). The Missouri Supreme Court held convictions for both first degree robbery and armed criminal action arising out of the sa......