State v. Smith

241 S.W.3d 864, 2008 WL 34759
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 2, 2008·No. WD 68085·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*865 Order

PER CURIAM.

Kevin D. Smith appeals his conviction for tampering in the first degree. The State presented evidence that Smith stole tools from a truck, attempted to steal the truck itself, and in the process defaced or altered the truck. Smith now claims that the trial court erred in submitting the charge to the jury because the State lacked direct evidence or sufficient circumstantial evidence that demonstrated he altered or defaced the vehicle. We disagree. When viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. We, therefore, affirm the conviction.

Rule 30.25(b).

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

State v. Smith, 241 S.W.3d 864, 2008 WL 34759 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

241 S.W.3d 864 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. State
343 S.W.3d 766 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)
State v. Daniels
241 S.W.3d 864 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)