341 S.W.3d 154
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mosby was convicted by jury of second-degree burglary and acquitted of stealing; sentenced as a prior/persistent offender to nine years.
- The burglary occurred between May 16–18, 2009 at Marketing Matters, where a window was broken and a laptop stolen.
- Blood belonging to Mosby was found on a window blind; the window allowed entry/exit from the damaged opening.
- Police obtained Mosby’s statement admitting his blood could be on the window; Mosby provided a DNA sample that matched.
- Miller testified he never saw Mosby or gave him permission to enter; Detective Torrence testified Mosby admitted possible blood at the scene.
- Mosby did not testify or present other evidence; the verdict followed a trial with multiple State witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary | Mosby challenges sufficient evidence that he knowingly entered for stealing. | Mosby argues possible innocent explanations and lack of direct eyewitness to the entry. | Sufficient evidence supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tomes, 329 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. App. E.D.2010) (review for sufficiency of evidence highly deferential to jury)
- State v. Jones, 296 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. App. E.D.2009) (great deference to jury; standard in sufficiency review)
- State v. Goddard, 649 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. banc 1983) (potentially innocent explanations disregarded in sufficiency analysis)
- State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422 (Mo. banc 2008) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- State v. Salmon, 89 S.W.3d 540 (Mo. App. W.D.2002) (direct and circumstantial evidence may both support verdict)
- State v. Mosely, 873 S.W.2d 879 (Mo. App. E.D.1994) (circumstantial proof suffices for conviction)
- State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. W.D.1993) (jury may rely on circumstantial evidence without impossibility of innocence)