State v. Seddens

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Seddens

680 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4918

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 1984

DocketNo. 48320

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 680 S.W.2d 364 (State v. Seddens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Seddens, 680 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4918 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

CRANDALL, Judge.

Defendant, Richard Seddens, was convicted by a jury of possession of burglar’s tools, § 569.180, RSMo (1978), and sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to imprisonment for eight years. Defend[365]*365ant’s sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the State’s opening statement. Finding no error, we affirm.

Defendant was arrested in an apartment complex area with a tire tool in his possession. When questioned, he ultimately stated that he was looking for something to break into in order to steal but that he “hadn’t found anything he liked.” Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but instead asserts trial court error in overruling his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s opening statement. He argues that the failure of the prosecutor to specifically state an essential element of the offense charged, i.e. that the tire tool was “adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating an offense involving forcible entry into premises,” § 569.180, RSMo (1978), mandates a reversal. § 546.070(1), RSMo (Supp.1983). We disagree.

While the trial court has the power to enter a judgment of acquittal after the prosecutor’s opening statement, that authority should be exercised only if it affirmatively and clearly shows that the State cannot make a submissible case under any view of the evidence, and the State is given an opportunity to embellish its statement in response to defendant’s motion. State v. Gray, 423 S.W.2d 776, 786 (Mo.1968). In testing the sufficiency of the opening statement, the facts stated therein and the reasonable inferences therefrom are accepted as true. State v. Whites, 538 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App.1976).

In this case, the prosecutor’s opening statement was essentially the same as the evidence he presented at trial. Included in the opening statement was reference to defendant’s confession that he intended to commit a burglary and a stealing by means of forced entry. From that statement it can reasonably be inferred that the tire tool in his possession would be used to help accomplish his purpose. Defendant’s point is denied.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWD, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRANDALL, Judge.

Defendant, Richard Seddens, was convicted by a jury of possession of burglar’s tools, § 569.180, RSMo (1978), and sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to imprisonment for eight years. Defend[365]*365ant’s sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the State’s opening statement. Finding no error, we affirm.

Defendant was arrested in an apartment complex area with a tire tool in his possession. When questioned, he ultimately stated that he was looking for something to break into in order to steal but that he “hadn’t found anything he liked.” Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but instead asserts trial court error in overruling his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s opening statement. He argues that the failure of the prosecutor to specifically state an essential element of the offense charged, i.e. that the tire tool was “adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating an offense involving forcible entry into premises,” § 569.180, RSMo (1978), mandates a reversal. § 546.070(1), RSMo (Supp.1983). We disagree.

While the trial court has the power to enter a judgment of acquittal after the prosecutor’s opening statement, that authority should be exercised only if it affirmatively and clearly shows that the State cannot make a submissible case under any view of the evidence, and the State is given an opportunity to embellish its statement in response to defendant’s motion. State v. Gray, 423 S.W.2d 776, 786 (Mo.1968). In testing the sufficiency of the opening statement, the facts stated therein and the reasonable inferences therefrom are accepted as true. State v. Whites, 538 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App.1976).

In this case, the prosecutor’s opening statement was essentially the same as the evidence he presented at trial. Included in the opening statement was reference to defendant’s confession that he intended to commit a burglary and a stealing by means of forced entry. From that statement it can reasonably be inferred that the tire tool in his possession would be used to help accomplish his purpose. Defendant’s point is denied.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWD, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 S.W.2d 364, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seddens-moctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack