State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 13 October 1969
• Docket Number: No. 54401,No. 2,54401,2
• Citation: 445 S.W.2d 282
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond TAYLOR, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 282

445 S.W.2d 282

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond TAYLOR, Appellant.

No. 54401.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Oct. 13, 1969.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

J. Arnot Hill, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Appellant was found guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree. The jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of two years, and appellant has appealed. The only contention is that the trial court erred in refusing appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.

About 2:25 o'clock in the morning of July 3, 1968, Patrolman Theodore Allen saw appellant standing in the doorway, 'right up to the door,' of the Scotch Cleaners located at the intersection of 31st and Highland Streets in Kansas City. When Patrolman Allen turned his automobile around appellant ran north on Highland Street. He was stopped by the patrolman about ten or twelve yards from the fence line 'right behind' the building. In answer to a question, appellant stated that he had been at the doorway of the Scotch Cleaners to urinate, but an examination of the area did not indicate that he had done so. In the path that appellant had taken when running, and about ten feet from where he was stopped, the patrolman found a screw driver near the sidewalk in the grass. A few minutes later another patrolman found a loaded .22 caliber revolver two or three feet from where the screw driver was found. The metal part to the door of the Scotch Cleaners where appellant was standing had 'pry marks' on it, some of which had a 'shiny appearance' as though 'freshly made.' The door was slightly dented and some paint had been removed. It appeared that 'someone had inserted an object and tried to force the lock' to the door. The screw driver which had been found nearby 'could fit the marks' but the marks were wider than the tip of the screw driver. Appellant was the only person in the neighborhood at the time.

The evidence of the recently made pry marks on the door and the lock, together with permissible inferences, clearly authorized a finding that the offense of attempted burglary was committed by someone. See State v. Rogers, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 398. The evidence is wholly circumstantial that the person who attempted to burglarize the Scotch Cleaners building was the appellant, and in such situation "the facts and circumstances relied upon by the State to establish guilt must not only be consistent with each other, and with the hypothesis of defendant's guilt, but they must also be inconsistent and irreconcilable with his innocence, and must point so clearly and satisfactorily to giult as to exclude every reasonably hypothesis of innocence.' State v. Burton, Mo., 357 S.W.2d 927. In our determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, 'all of the substantial evidence offered by the State is taken as true, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and by substantial evidence is meant 'evidence from which the triers of the fact reasonably could find the issue in harmony therewith.'' State v. Whitaker, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 316, 319.

When analyzed according to the above rules, the evidence reveals the following. At approximately 2:30 o'clock in the morning appellant was seen at the door of the Scotch Cleaners...