Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Rose

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

March 28, 2018

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
v.
CALVIN M. ROSE, Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY Honorable Elizabeth Vincent Rohrs, Associate Circuit Judge

          WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. - OPINION AUTHOR.

         Calvin M. Rose ("Rose")[1] appeals his conviction for receiving stolen property, pursuant to section 570.080. On appeal, Rose contends the trial court abused its discretion in overruling defense counsel's objection to the owner's testimony regarding the value of the cattle taken, in that the testimony was hearsay offered for the truth of the matter asserted and did not fit any of the exceptions to the general rule against hearsay. Finding no merit to this contention, we affirm.

          Factual and Procedural History

         Rose does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We recite only those facts relevant to the legal issue raised by Rose, and as necessary for context.

         In August 2015, Rose tried to steal two cows and a calf from the farm of an 88-year-old man ("Victim") in Morrisville. Victim called the police. Rose, admitting to hearing of Victim's report of theft, returned the cattle to Victim. Rose asked Victim where he should unload the cattle. Victim said, "[w]here you loaded them up." Then Rose unloaded the cattle from where he initially took them.

         Rose was charged, by amended information, with the class C felony of receiving stolen property with a value of at least $500, pursuant to section 570.080, [2] as a prior and persistent offender.

         A jury trial commenced on February 23, 2017. The prosecutor adduced the following testimony from Victim:

[State]: Do you have an opinion as to the value of the cattle that were taken --
[Victim]: Oh, yes.
[State]: -- on the 26th of August?
[Victim]: Yes. Well, if I'd have bought them on the market, the cow and calf -- there was a cow and calf together -- they would have brought around $3, 000 I'd have had to pay for them. And the other cow on the market would have brought about $1, 000.
During cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred:
[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Now, you stated a little bit ago that these cattle were worth somewhere in the neighborhood of over $4, 000, right?
[Victim]: Well, let's see, [$]3, 000 -- yes, $4, 000. Right. Uh-huh.
. . . .
[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Now, were you in the business of buying and selling cattle?
[Victim]: Oh, I've never -- No, I just raise them from ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.