State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 29 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 71009.,WD 71009. |
| Citation | 314 S.W.3d 407 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Wayne THOMPSON, Appellant. |
314 S.W.3d 407
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Jeffrey Wayne THOMPSON, Appellant.
No. WD 71009.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
June 29, 2010.
Craig A. Johnston, for Appellant.
Daniel N. McPherson, for Respondent.
Before Division Two: MARK D. PFEIFFER, Presiding Judge, VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge and ALOK AHUJA, Judge.
VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.
Jeffrey Thompson appeals the trial court's judgment upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of stealing by deceit. On appeal, Mr. Thompson claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the case on the basis that Buchanan County was not the proper venue. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background
The State charged Jeffrey Thompson with the class C felony of stealing by deceit in violation of section 570.030.1 A jury found Mr. Thompson guilty of the charge,
In early 2006, Kenneth and Sarah Siemens were building a home in Buchanan County in St. Joseph, Missouri. When Mrs. Siemens decided that she wanted granite countertops in the kitchen, the Siemenses' general contractor, Craig Whitacre, recommended Mr. Thompson to do the job. Mrs. Siemens called Mr. Thompson, and he directed her to a business in Kansas City called Stone and Beyond where she could choose the granite she wanted for the countertops.2 Mrs. Siemens went to Stone and Beyond in February 2006 and selected the type of granite she wanted. She then met Mr. Thompson at a work site close to the store where they discussed options for the edging of the countertops.
After the Siemenses had chosen the granite, Mr. Siemens asked Mr. Thompson to submit a written bid for the job. Mr. Thompson faxed a bid to Mr. Whitacre's office, which was located in Buchanan County. The bid quoted a price of $4,198 for the granite and the fabrication. Mr. Whitacre faxed the bid to Mr. Siemens's office, which was also located in Buchanan County. The Siemenses decided to accept the bid, and Mrs. Siemens called Mr. Thompson to discuss a payment arrangement. Mr. Thompson said that he wanted a down payment of $2,800 to cover the cost of the granite and part of the labor. He told Mrs. Siemens to make the check out to his company, Southeast Holding Company, and to mail the check to a post office box in Florida.3
Mr. Siemens wrote the check and mailed it to Florida, but it was later returned as undeliverable. The Siemenses talked to Mr. Thompson, and they agreed to meet him at Stone and Beyond to give him the check. Mr. Siemens met Mr. Thompson at Stone and Beyond and gave him the same check that he had previously mailed to Florida. The check was later deposited in the bank account of Southeast Holding Company. While he was at Stone and Beyond, Mr. Siemens asked for and received a copy of the sales order showing that the granite had been paid for. Mr. Thompson signed the document, and it was stamped as "paid" at the request of Mr. Siemens so he could have a receipt showing that the granite had been paid for. However, the granite was not actually purchased that day.
When it was time for the countertops to be installed, Mr. Whitacre began contacting Mr. Thompson. On three or four occasions, Mr. Thompson said he would come on a weekend and do the work, but he never did. At the time, Mr. Whitacre and the Siemenses thought that Mr. Thompson was living in the Kansas City area, although he was doing some work in Florida. They were not aware that Mr. Thompson had moved to Florida. During this time period, Mr. Whitacre made dozens of phone calls to Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson never initiated contact or called Mr. Whitacre back. Eventually, Mr. Thompson stopped answering Mr. Whitacre's phone calls, and the phone number that Mr. Thompson had given Mr. Whitacre went out of service. When the Siemenses moved into their home, the countertops had not been installed. Because Mr. Thompson never purchased the granite from Stone and Beyond or installed the
Mr. Siemens contacted the Buchanan County Sheriff's Department and asked it to investigate the matter. After investigators talked to Mr. Thompson, he called Mr. Siemens and offered to repay the $2,800. In October 2006, Mr. Thompson borrowed money from a relative for the purpose of repaying the Siemenses but never repaid the money the Siemenses had given him. After an investigation, Mr. Thompson was charged with the class C felony of stealing by deceit. Prior to trial, the court heard evidence on Mr. Thompson's motion to dismiss for reason of improper venue. Mr. Thompson argued that none of the elements of the crime occurred in Buchanan County and that, therefore, Buchanan County was not the proper venue for the trial. The court denied the motion, finding that the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of representation and reliance occurred, at least in part, in Buchanan County.
The trial proceeded in Buchanan County, and the jury found Mr. Thompson guilty of stealing by deceit. The trial court sentenced him, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years of imprisonment. This appeal by Mr. Thompson followed.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In his first point on appeal, Mr. Thompson contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence. He claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of stealing by deceit because the State presented no other evidence beyond his failure to perform the work on the Siemenses' home.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, our review is limited to "`a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Karl, 270 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (quoting State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. banc 1998)). We accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, including all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id. "A jury may believe all, some or none of a witness's testimony, and the jury must resolve any contradictions or conflicts in that testimony." State v. McMellen, 872 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Mo.App. W.D.1994).
Mr. Thompson was charged with stealing by deceit in violation of section 570.030, which provides that "a person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Mo. v. Davies
...evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Thompson, 314 S.W.3d 407, 410 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting State v. Karl, 270 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). "We accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, in......
-
State v. Wadel
...including all favorable inferences drawn therefrom, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” State v. Thompson, 314 S.W.3d 407, 410 (Mo.App. W.D.2010). “ ‘This is not an assessment of whether the Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasona......
-
State v. Blair
...that evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences. State v. Thompson, 314 S.W.3d 407, 410 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). We do not reweigh the evidence, but determine only whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juro......
-
State v. McNabb
...in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences. State v. Thompson , 314 S.W.3d 407, 410 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). We do not reweigh the evidence but determine only whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror mi......