State v. Bell
1988 WL 6353, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, 743 S.W.2d 907 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A 'claim of right' defense to stealing requires a lawful claim to the property; therefore, a belief that money is owed for illegal sexual acts does not establish such a defense. Additionally, to preserve an objection to a prosecutor's closing argument for appellate review, the objection must be specific and accompanied by a request for relief.
Facts:
- John Mothon, a 70-year-old retired steelworker, lived in a one-room apartment in the city.
- The defendant and her boyfriend, Lamont Battle, lived upstairs from Mothon but were evicted.
- Mothon allowed the defendant and Battle to live with him for several weeks.
- During their stay, Mothon and the defendant had sexual relations on as many as three occasions.
- After one such incident in early May 1985, the defendant asked Mothon for $30, but he did not give her any money at that time.
- On May 6, Mothon gave the defendant $8 for having sexual relations with him a few days earlier.
- Later that evening, Battle attacked Mothon, grabbed him, asked why he had not given the defendant the rest of the money, threw him on the bed, bit his finger, scratched his neck, and tried to choke him.
- While Battle held Mothon's arms, the defendant reached into Mothon’s front pocket, removed three $20 bills, and then left his apartment.
- After the defendant left, Battle gave Mothon a shotgun and told him to shoot him; Mothon complied, hitting Battle in the right upper arm.
- Police officers arrested the defendant and Battle at the scene.
- A search of the defendant at the police station revealed three $20 bills stuck in the fly of a pair of men’s underwear.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (the trial court) of stealing.
- The defendant was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
- The defendant appealed her conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's belief that money taken from a victim was owed to them for illegal sexual favors constitute a 'claim of right' defense to a charge of stealing? Is an objection to a prosecutor's closing argument preserved for review on appeal if it lacks sufficient specificity and a request for relief?
Opinions:
Majority - Pudlowski
No, a defendant's belief that money taken from a victim was owed for illegal sexual favors does not constitute a 'claim of right' defense to stealing, nor is an objection preserved for review without specificity and a request for relief. The court first addresses the defendant's claim of right defense. The defendant's testimony at trial denied taking the money, asserting she was not present during the altercation. This is inconsistent with a claim of right defense, which inherently concedes the act occurred but denies its criminality. The defendant has the burden of injecting the issue of claim of right into the case. Even if properly raised, the defense would fail because a claim of right depends on a lawful claim, and the defendant had no legal right to payment for sexual favors, as such an agreement is unlawful. Therefore, the necessary mental state for stealing was present. The court also found that the defendant's objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument was not preserved for review. The objection lacked sufficient specificity to inform the trial court of its legal grounds and the defendant made no request for relief. A general objection preserves nothing for review and is considered no objection at all. The trial court had nothing specific to rule upon. Based on these findings, the conviction was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of the 'claim of right' defense in Missouri, establishing that an alleged debt arising from an unlawful agreement cannot negate the mental state required for stealing. It underscores the judiciary's refusal to sanction self-help remedies for illicit transactions, reinforcing the principle that only lawful claims can form the basis of such a defense. Furthermore, the ruling serves as a crucial reminder for trial attorneys regarding the procedural diligence required to preserve issues for appellate review, emphasizing the necessity of specific objections and requests for relief to ensure judicial accountability for alleged trial errors. This case ensures that defendants cannot use their participation in illegal activities as a shield against criminal liability for theft related to those activities.
