State v. Olten
326 S.W.3d 137
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Olten was tried for first-degree burglary (Delgado home) and second-degree burglary (Cotton home) in Cole County, consolidated for trial.
- At trial, Olten, Patterson, and Jeremy burglarized the Delgado residence, taking guns, jewelry, and electronics; weapons included AR-15, Glock, and M-4 rifles.
- Afterward, the trio transported stolen items to Olten’s father’s home; later, suspicious activity led to police pursuit and the capture of Patterson and Olten.
- Patterson testified that Olten found weapons in the Delgado closet and helped load items into a car; the State sought to prove Olten was armed during flight.
- The trial court overruled motions for acquittal and new trial; Olten was convicted on both counts with concurrent seven-year sentences.
- On appeal, Olten challenged the sufficiency of evidence to prove he or Patterson were armed with a deadly weapon under § 569.160(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Armed with a deadly weapon elements | Olten argues possession alone cannot satisfy § 569.160(1). | Olten contends Crews and Sales improperly interpret the statute; argues lack of weapon transfer proof. | Armed meaning includes possession of weapons; sufficient to support first-degree burglary. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show armed status during flight | Patterson’s testimony implies Olten carried weapons to the car. | No explicit testimony that Olten carried weapons; insufficient to prove armed during flight. | Reasonable inferences support armed during flight; evidence not unreasonable or speculative. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crews, 968 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998) (armed when unlawfully taking possession of a firearm during burglary)
- State v. Sales, 255 S.W.3d 565 (Mo.App. S.D. 2008) (stolen firearms during burglary support enhanced burglary charge)
- State v. Moore, 303 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2010) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language approach)
- State v. Seeler, 316 S.W.3d 920 (Mo. banc 2010) (due process and element proof in burglary cases)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (beyond a reasonable doubt standard for criminal convictions)
- State v. Salazar, 236 S.W.3d 644 (Mo. banc 2007) (statutory interpretation and construction principles)