State v. Brown
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1289
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Demetrius A. Brown was tried for multiple theft- and burglary-related offenses arising from break-ins at St. Peter Catholic Church (rectory, sacristy, chapel) and related evidence of conduct at St. Robert’s church; jury convicted on burglary of rectory (Count 1), stealing a credit card (Count 2), burglary of sacristy (Count 6), and stealing a television (Count 7); acquitted on some counts and mistrial on laptop count.
- Facts linking defendant to crimes: eyewitness (Lanteigne) saw defendant in chapel area and leaving in a white damaged car; rectory back door found partly open; missing keys later recovered from defendant’s car; surveillance video and pawn records connected defendant to use of the stolen credit card and to selling a Samsung TV matching the stolen model; pawn ticket signature resembled defendant’s.
- Count 6 alleged second-degree burglary of the sacristy (private area); key legal question was whether the State proved the defendant knowingly entered an area not open to the public.
- Count 7 alleged felony stealing of a TV valued at $500+; evidence showed original purchase price of $749.99 (2008) but a pawn sale for $140 in 2011, with no direct evidence of market value at time/place of theft.
- Trial court admitted testimony and surveillance from St. Robert’s (uncharged incident) and a detective’s lay identification from Lowe’s surveillance; defendant objected to both admissions and to sufficiency on counts 6 and 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for burglary of sacristy (Count 6) | State: entering altar area to reach sacristy shows knowledge sacristy was private; priest testified sacristy not open to public | Brown: sacristy had an interior door often "open" on Saturdays and an unmarked exterior door; no evidence doors were locked or marked "private"; so no proof of knowing unlawful entry | Reversed conviction on Count 6 — evidence insufficient to show knowing unlawful entry into sacristy |
| Sufficiency of value for felony stealing (TV, Count 7) | State: proof of original purchase price and pawnbroker sale plus identity links TV to defendant suffice | Brown: purchase price (2008) is not market value in 2011; pawn sale for $140 undermines $500+ value; State failed to prove market or replacement value per statute | Conviction on Count 7 reduced to lesser-included class A misdemeanor stealing; remanded for resentencing |
| Admission of evidence from St. Robert’s (uncharged incidents) | State: evidence shows similar conduct and intent; admissible to show intent/absence of mistake; not "other crimes" evidence | Brown: evidence was propensity evidence of other bad acts and highly prejudicial; improperly used to infer guilt at St. Peter’s | Admission was erroneous but harmless here — defendant not prejudiced because properly admitted evidence against him was overwhelming; point denied |
| Detective’s identification of defendant on Lowe’s video | State: detective had close contact/observation of defendant and could identify; videos themselves also before jury | Brown: lay opinion identification invaded jury’s role and was improper; prejudicial | Admission not reversible error — even if borderline, defendant failed to show prejudice given other strong identification evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weide, 775 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (unmarked door to nonpublic area undermines proof of knowing unlawful entry)
- State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. 1993) (circumstantial-evidence rule and standard of appellate review)
- State v. Ecford, 239 S.W.3d 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (lesser-included conviction may be entered when greater offense reversed for insufficiency)
- State v. Calicotte, 78 S.W.3d 790 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002) (prosecution bears burden to prove value of stolen property)
- State v. Napper, 381 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. 1964) (pre-1979 rule that purchase price and age may suffice to prove value)
- State v. Slocum, 420 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (owner testimony may establish value; courts should apply statutory definition of market value)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (limits on propensity evidence; unfair prejudice standard)