403 S.W.3d 120
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- J.N.C.B. appeals a juvenile court judgment sustaining allegations of burglary in the second degree under §569.170.
- Evidence was presented by a single witness, Officer Edward Johnson, at the adjudication hearing.
- Officers found three juveniles in Northeast Middle School after an alarm; the south door was propped open with a rock.
- No one possessed weapons or school property; one juvenile had a broom; no items were shown to be stolen or damaged.
- The juvenile officer alleged burglary in the first degree, but the court sustained the lesser offense of burglary in the second degree.
- The issue on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of the requisite criminal intent to support burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of intent to steal | J.N.C.B. relies on presence of valuables as proof of intent to steal. | J.N.C.B. contends absence of evidence showing intent to steal; unlawful entry alone is insufficient for second degree. | Insufficient evidence of intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether a permissive inference can establish intent to steal as the sole basis for conviction | Presence of valuables supports intent to steal via inference. | Inference cannot be sole basis; due process requires more. | Permissive inference cannot be sole basis; insufficient without additional indicia |
| Application of due process standards to circumstantial evidence of intent | Infer plausible intent from unlawful entry and valuables. | Total record does not create rational connection to intent beyond doubt. | No rational connection; due process not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 741 S.W.2d 767 (Mo.App. E.D.1987) (circumstantial proof of intent permissible with other facts)
- State v. Haslar, 887 S.W.2d 610 (Mo.App. W.D.1994) (consummation of intent not necessary for burglary proof)
- Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (permissive inferences require rational connection to proven facts)
- State v. Brown, 744 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. banc 1988) (inference can support conviction without other evidence, but integrity required)
- State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1993) (circumstantial evidence allowed if minimal due process standard met)
- Langdon, 110 S.W.3d 807 (Mo. banc 2003) (sufficiency review requires view in light most favorable to verdict; no missing inference)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (permissive inferences must be reasonable and justifiable)
- J.A.H., 293 S.W.3d 116 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (burden on State to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)