State v. Ford, 367 S.W.3d 163

Ford was convicted of burglary in the second degree (Funeral Home) and possession of burglar’s tools; acquitted on other counts.
Funeral Home and Jiffy Lube burglar alarms tripped in early morning; police found Ford hiding behind a furnace with a black backpack nearby.
Backpack contained pliers, screwdrivers, Funeral Home items, and a driver’s license in a false name; Ford gave a false name to officers.
Ford claimed he entered to sleep after fleeing a girlfriend’s house, not to steal; he testified he did not tell police his false name.
Evidence included photographs of bag contents, a broken basement window, ransacked offices, and items moved from upstairs to basement.
The court addressed whether the verdicts were legally consistent and whether there was sufficient evidence for each conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary second degree	State contends evidence shows Ford entered to commit theft.	Ford argues the jury acquitted theft, so no unique element supports burglary.	Evidence sufficiently supports burglary Second Degree.
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of burglar’s tools	State contends tools were in Ford’s possession and suitable for burglary.	Ford argues lack of proof of screwdriver possession and tool purpose.	Evidence sufficient to support possession of burglar’s tools.

State v. Haslar, 887 S.W.2d 610 (Mo.App. W.D.1994) (inconsistency requires unique element not present across offenses)
State v. Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (burglary and theft have distinct elements; verdicts may be consistent)
Flemons, 144 S.W.3d 877 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (verdicts on multiple offenses need not be logically consistent)
State v. Vernon, 337 S.W.3d 88 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (tools need only be suitable for illegal purposes; intent shown circumstantially)
State v. Adkins, 678 S.W.2d 855 (Mo.App. W.D.1984) (conviction for possessing burglar’s tools requires circumstantial evidence of intent)