State v. Naylor, 2017 Mo. LEXIS 94

Naylor was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary, misdemeanor stealing, and driving while revoked; sentenced concurrently (15, 1, and 7 years respectively) and appealed.
Surveillance video from Missy’s Family Restaurant showed a man enter the restaurant, go into a back office marked “Office,” and remove $165 from an employee’s purse; the office was only accessible from inside the building via an employee area/hallway.
The day before, Illinois businesses (Farm Fresh Milk Store and a Sandwich Shop) experienced similar incidents involving a burnt-orange 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix with distinctive stripes and damage; employees recorded part of the license plate and the suspect’s voice and appearance.
Police stopped Naylor in a 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix with plate PH5 U6Y; officers found $675 cash and a baseball cap; Naylor denied involvement and claimed the money was from poker and his girlfriend.
Forensics/lay witnesses (a body shop manager and employees) tied the cars and suspect appearance/voice across the incidents; a Sandwich Shop employee identified Naylor’s voice from a recording.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: knowingly entered unlawfully into the office	State: office signage, location, and Naylor’s furtive parking show he knowingly entered nonpublic area	Naylor: no explicit “no entry” sign; office door only said "Office," so entry might be lawful	Held: Sufficient — signage, office location, and furtive conduct permit inference of unlawful knowing entry
Sufficiency: presence of another nonparticipant in structure for first-degree burglary	State: employee (Giesler) was present in same building, satisfying the statutory requirement	Naylor: argues state failed to prove another nonparticipant was present in the office at the time	Held: Sufficient — another nonparticipant was in the building (restaurant) and office is part of same structure
Admissibility: evidence of prior/uncharged misconduct (Illinois incidents)	State: admitted to prove identity, common plan, and the circumstances of identification	Naylor: prior incidents were unduly prejudicial and used only to show propensity to commit burglaries	Held: Admissible — prior incidents were probative on identity and were a coherent part of the events; limiting instruction given
Abuse of discretion in admitting prior-acts evidence	N/A (overlaps with prior issue)	Naylor: trial court erred and prejudiced his right to fair trial	Held: No abuse — trial court acted within discretion and error, if any, was not prejudicial

State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury factfinder deference in sufficiency review)
State v. Norfolk, 745 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987) (signage indicating nonpublic area supports unlawful entry)
State v. Weide, 775 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (absence of signage may preclude finding of knowingly unlawful entry)
State v. Oropeza, 735 S.W.2d 2 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987) (concealment and furtive conduct as evidence of unlawful intent)
State v. Washington, 92 S.W.3d 205 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (distinguishing separate structures and the purpose behind first-degree burglary statute)
State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (exceptions allowing admission of uncharged misconduct for identity, motive, common plan)