State v. Chapman
1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 746, 1994 WL 174264, 876 S.W.2d 15 (1994)
Rule of Law:
A defendant's intent to commit stealing can be proven by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence, particularly when their actions are part of a coordinated scheme to unlawfully appropriate property, and evidence of flight is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
Facts:
- On May 10, 1989, Defendant and an acquaintance, Benny Hill, left St. Louis and drove to Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
- Hill entered a Wal-Mart store in Cape Girardeau and was observed removing a hose reel from its box and placing a videocassette recorder (VCR) inside the hose reel box, while Defendant waited in the car.
- A Wal-Mart store employee reported Hill's actions to the manager, who then placed a black dot on the modified hose reel box and called the Cape Girardeau Police Department.
- Hill returned to the car and told Defendant the VCR was in the garden department in a specific hose reel box, instructing her to purchase that box.
- About an hour later, Defendant entered Wal-Mart, went to the lawn and garden center, retrieved the identified hose reel box containing the VCR, and purchased it along with a few other items, paying $19.96 for the box (the VCR was valued at $288).
- Defendant took the VCR to the car, where Hill placed it in the trunk.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was arrested and charged with one count of felony stealing.
- After a trial, a jury convicted Defendant.
- The trial court sentenced Defendant to two years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
- Defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The motion court denied Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Defendant appealed her conviction for felony stealing and the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion, with the appeals being consolidated.
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 sufficient circumstantial evidence exist to prove a defendant had the purpose to deprive a store of property when they purchased an item after an accomplice hid more valuable merchandise inside it and directed the defendant to the specific concealed item?
Opinions:
Majority - CRIST, Judge
Yes, sufficient circumstantial evidence existed for a reasonable juror to infer that Defendant acted with the purpose to deprive Wal-Mart of the VCR. The court explained that direct proof of a required mental state is rarely available and can be established by inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence. The evidence showed Defendant waited in the car while Hill concealed the VCR; they returned to Wal-Mart an hour later; Hill specifically instructed Defendant on which hose reel box to purchase; and Defendant then entered the store and bought that exact box containing the significantly more valuable VCR. The court noted that a store manager testified this 'switch' is a typical pattern of shoplifting. The court also affirmed the admission of evidence of Defendant's failure to appear at pretrial matters, finding it admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Lastly, the court found no clear error in denying Defendant's Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that the proposed testimony of Kathy Howard Reed about Hill's comments would be inadmissible hearsay (as Hill was available and testified) and Dr. Drover's testimony regarding a bladder infection would not have provided a viable defense.
Analysis:
This case underscores the principle that criminal intent, a key element of many offenses, can be established through a combination of circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, particularly in cases involving coordinated criminal activity. It demonstrates how a defendant's participation in a scheme, even without direct execution of every step, can be sufficient to prove intent. Furthermore, the decision clarifies the limitations on the hearsay exception for declarations against penal interest when the declarant is available, and reiterates the high burden defendants face under Strickland v. Washington to prove both deficient performance and prejudice for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
