Criminal Law : Burglary – Sufficiency Of Evidence – Propensity Evidence

(1)Where a defendant challenged a first-degree burglary conviction arguing that the state did not show that he knew that his alleged entry into the office area of a restaurant was unlawful, evidence that he parked in a nearby lot, and that the office was marked as such and was at the end of a hall that led away from the public area of the restaurant past employees’ coats and lockers was sufficient to show that he knowingly entered the office unlawfully, and there was also sufficient evidence to establish that another person was in the restaurant during the incident, so the judgment of conviction for first-degree burglary is affirmed.

(2)Where a trial court allowed testimony regarding a theft and attempted theft involving a defendant who was charged with first-degree burglary in a third incident, the state admitted the evidence to show similarities between the suspect’s vehicle, appearance and voice, so the evidence met an exception for establishing identity to the prohibition against propensity evidence, and the jury was properly instructed to consider the evidence only for identification, so the court did not abuse its discretion.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. Naylor (MLW No. 70299/Case No. SC95847 – 16 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Draper III, J.; Breckenridge, C.J., Fischer, Stith, Wilson and Russell, JJ., concur) Appealed from circuit court, Ste. Genevieve County, Horn, J. (Casey A. Taylor, Columbia, for appellant) (Dora Fichter, Jefferson City, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)