State v. Wishom

725 S.W.2d 627, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3632
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 10, 1987
DocketNo. 51261
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 725 S.W.2d 627 (State v. Wishom) 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. Wishom, 725 S.W.2d 627, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury for .unlawful possession of a concealable firearm. § 571.070.1(1), RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1984). He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

Section 571.070 provides that it is a crime to possess a concealable firearm within five years of being convicted of or pleading guilty to a dangerous felony. The jury found defendant had in his possession a .357 magnum pistol, a concealable firearm, and he had pled guilty to the crime of burglary second degree, defined as a dangerous felony in § 556.061, RSMo (Cum. Supp.1984), within the last five years. The following instruction (MAI-CR2d 31.28) was given by the court.

If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that on or about January 6,1985, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant had in his possession a .357 magnum pistol, a concealable firearm, and
Second, on November 29, 1983, the defendant pled guilty to the crime of burglary second degree, then you will find the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a concealable firearm.
However, if you do not find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of these propositions, you must find the defendant not guilty of that offense.
As used in this instruction ‘concealable firearm’ means any firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches in length, measured from the face of the bolt or standing breech.

Defendant asserts error in that the MAI form does not require the jury to find defendant possessed any culpable mental state (purposely, knowingly or recklessly). Defendant admits the statute under which defendant was charged, § 571.070, does not, on its face, prescript any culpable mental state. Defendant asks for review under the plain error rule. Rule 30.20.

An affirmance is mandated by State v. Bean, 720 S.W.2d 21 (Mo.App.1986). In Bean, under similar facts, the court held a culpable mental state need not be proved in a prosecution under § 571.070.

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

Related

State v. Jones
865 S.W.2d 658 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1993)
State v. Mosby
755 S.W.2d 614 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Rogers
753 S.W.2d 607 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
725 S.W.2d 627, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wishom-moctapp-1987.