State v. Triplett

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Triplett

738 S.W.2d 589, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4642

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 1987

DocketNo. 51703

StatusPublished

This text of 738 S.W.2d 589 (State v. Triplett) 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. Triplett, 738 S.W.2d 589, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced as a dangerous and persistent offender to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. We affirm.

On appeal defendant asserts the State failed to make a submissible case. We accept as true all evidence, which supports the verdict in order to determine whether there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable people could find defendant guilty. State v. Moseley, 705 S.W.2d 613, 616[8, 9] (Mo.App.1986).

Defendant was charged with robbing a Fashion Gal store. The manager and assistant manager of Fashion Gal both testified that defendant and an accomplice, with the aid of a gun, took approximately $4,000 from the store. Both witnesses identified defendant from a photographic array, in a lineup, and in court during the trial.

[590]*590As part of his defense defendant had his aunt take the stand. She testified defendant’s hands were scarred, his front teeth were missing, and he always wore glasses. This information had not been included in the description the victims gave to the police. That the description given by the victims was not as complete as his aunt could have given goes to the credibility of the identification not to its sufficiency. State v. Reasonover, 700 S.W.2d 178, 182 [2] (Mo.App.1985); State v. Gates, 637 S.W.2d 280, 286 [11] (Mo.App.1982). The testimony of a single eyewitness, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to establish the identity of a criminal defendant. State v. Bolder, 635 S.W.2d 673, 679 [2] (Mo.banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S.Ct. 770, 74 L.Ed.2d 983 (1982). Two eyewitnesses positively identified defendant, and the jury obviously believed them.

Judgment affirmed.

SATZ, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a jury conviction of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced as a dangerous and persistent offender to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. We affirm.

On appeal defendant asserts the State failed to make a submissible case. We accept as true all evidence, which supports the verdict in order to determine whether there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable people could find defendant guilty. State v. Moseley, 705 S.W.2d 613, 616[8, 9] (Mo.App.1986).

Defendant was charged with robbing a Fashion Gal store. The manager and assistant manager of Fashion Gal both testified that defendant and an accomplice, with the aid of a gun, took approximately $4,000 from the store. Both witnesses identified defendant from a photographic array, in a lineup, and in court during the trial.

[590]*590As part of his defense defendant had his aunt take the stand. She testified defendant’s hands were scarred, his front teeth were missing, and he always wore glasses. This information had not been included in the description the victims gave to the police. That the description given by the victims was not as complete as his aunt could have given goes to the credibility of the identification not to its sufficiency. State v. Reasonover, 700 S.W.2d 178, 182 [2] (Mo.App.1985); State v. Gates, 637 S.W.2d 280, 286 [11] (Mo.App.1982). The testimony of a single eyewitness, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to establish the identity of a criminal defendant. State v. Bolder, 635 S.W.2d 673, 679 [2] (Mo.banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103 S.Ct. 770, 74 L.Ed.2d 983 (1982). Two eyewitnesses positively identified defendant, and the jury obviously believed them.

Judgment affirmed.

SATZ, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 S.W.2d 589, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-triplett-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack