State v. Turner, WD
| Decision Date | 21 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 705 S.W.2d 108 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard E. TURNER, Appellant. 36631. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Sean D. O'Brien, Public Defender, Kansas City, David S. Durbin, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, J., Presiding, and DIXON and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his jury conviction of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080, RSMo Supp.1984, and court-imposed sentence of one year's imprisonment.
The defendant asserts the information is defective in failing to allege that the defendant's conduct was "knowing," and that the trial court erred in failing to take action sua sponte with respect to portions of the prosecutor's argument, and in giving as an instruction MAI-CR2d 2.20 because such instruction improperly defines "reasonable doubt."
The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned. Defendant was arrested at 3 a.m. in a residential neighborhood after a resident noticed unusual activity involving two vehicles. The officers who responded to the resident's call determined that an attempt had been made to remove the ignition from a vehicle owned by another resident of the neighborhood.
With respect to the first issue, the claim that the information is fatally defective, the state concedes that the information does not contain the words "knowing," while the statute defining the offense, § 569.080, RSMo Supp.1984, requires that for the crime of tampering in the first degree to be committed, the offense must be committed "knowingly." The basic purpose of an information is to inform the defendant of the charges against him so he can adequately prepare a defense and to preclude his retrial on the same issues. State v. Gilmore, 650 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Mo. banc 1983). An information is sufficient if it alleges facts necessary to establish all elements of the offense set out in the statute and clearly apprises the defendant of the acts constituting the offense. State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Mo. banc 1983).
The initial and controlling question is the construction of the language of the information. If the information pleads factually the mental state of knowingly, then the omission of the word "knowingly" does not invalidate the information. A person acts knowingly "[w]ith respect to his conduct ... when he is aware of the nature of his conduct ...;" § 562.016.3(1), RSMo 1978. The information says the defendant "remov[ed] the ignition system" from an automobile "without the consent of [the owner]." That language sufficiently excludes an inadvertent or unknowing act of the defendant. The information alleges sufficient facts to inform the defendant of the charges against him and to prevent retrial for the same offense. Supreme Court Rule 23.01(b)(2) requires the information to "[s]tate plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the defense charged." The information does that. The word "removal" in the context of the factual situation sufficiently alleges the mental state.
Defendant's assertion of error regarding the state's closing argument is a claim of plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carson
...(Mo.App.1986); State v. Mouser, 714 S.W.2d 851, 859 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Singer, 719 S.W.2d 818, 823 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Hawkins, 703 S.W.2d 67, 70-71 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Bruce, 671 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Davis,......
-
State v. Galbraith
...instructions, the approval of which the Supreme Court has reserved to itself under Rules 28.01 and 28.02. 4 See State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Mick, 674 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Mo.App.1984). We note, ex gratia, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir......
-
State v. Singer
...declaring the instructions adopted by the Supreme Court erroneous. State v. Mick, 674 S.W.2d 554, 558 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986). The judgment and conviction are affirmed. PRITCHARD, J., concurs. DIXON, J., dissents in separate dissenting opinion. DIXO......
-
State v. Wilson
...doubt. MAI-Cr 2d 1.02 and 2.20. This point is without merit having been rejected in numerous cases, including, State v. Turner, 705 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo.App.1986). The judgment of conviction is KENNEDY, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. It seems to me that our decision is in direct ......