STATE v. TURNER (2026)

Introduction

Gary Turner (Turner) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury's verdict convicting him of the class D felony of stealing.¹ We affirm.

Background

The following favorable facts were elicited at trial: a property owner (Victim) received a security alert on a camera located at his farm in Washington County. He called the Washington County sheriff department and two officers responded to the property. Upon arriving, the officers observed Turner and another individual with a utility terrain vehicle (UTV) and dirt bike on the drive. Officers pursued the UTV, which ultimately rolled onto its side, trapping the driver. Turner, the passenger, ran from the other officer but was ultimately apprehended. He was charged with the class D felony of stealing, over $750 or more, pursuant to Section 570.030 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2025).² A jury convicted him and he was sentenced to a total of eighteen years in prison. This appeal follows.

Discussion

In his sole point on appeal, Turner argues the trial court erred denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence of the value of the property stolen was insufficient to support his conviction for class D felony stealing.

Standard of Review

Turner contends he argued sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for class D felony stealing in his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's evidence and the close of all evidence. But he did not raise the specific claim concerning sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of stealing he now presents on appeal nor did he raise it in his motion for new trial. However, a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction is preserved even if not raised to the trial court. State v. Hartwein, 648 S.W.3d 834, 844 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (quoting State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 359 (Mo. banc 2015) (internal citation omitted); and see Rule 29.11(d)(3)). “While the better practice is to preserve specific claims of error for review, arguments concerning sufficiency of the evidence, even those not preserved for appeal, are reviewed on the merits, not for plain error.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Our review of the denial of motion for judgment of acquittal is under the same standard as reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict. State v. Eyler, 663 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (internal citation omitted). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are limited to a determination of whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. (quoting State v. Minor, 648 S.W.3d 721, 736 (Mo. banc 2022)). We disregard evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id.

Analysis

The state is required to prove each element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Johnson, 461 S.W.3d 842, 844 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Turner was charged pursuant to Section 570.030, which states the offense of stealing is a class D felony if the value of the property appropriated is $750 or more. Section 570.030.5(1). Thus, as an essential element to the crime of felony stealing, the state must prove the value of the stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson, 461 S.W.3d at 844.

Value is defined in Section 570.020(1) as, “the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime.” When the legislature enacted the statute, it was intended to abrogate the previous test applied in Missouri courts of purchase price plus age. State v. Brown, 457 S.W.3d 772, 783-84 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (overruled on other grounds).

Market value of the item at the time of the offense can be ascertained in various ways. State v. Perrey, 711 S.W.3d 483, 488 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (internal citation omitted). The state may prove value using direct and circumstantial evidence. Id. The evidence may also be informed by reasonable inferences from the jury's “common sense and life experiences.” Id. (quoting Johnson, 461 S.W.3d at 845). Even without receipts or other documentation, which the state is not required to introduce to prove its case, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support the valuation of stolen property. Id. at 489 (citing Woolford v. State, 58 S.W.3d 87, 89 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)).

Turner argues the jury could not infer the value of the tools stolen where no testimony was presented concerning the cost, age, or condition of the items. Without such evidence, he claims the jury's assessment was purely speculative. However, Victim testified regarding the brand and value of multiple items stolen from his garage when purchased new. These included $20 to $25 for a gas can; $600 to $650 for a 2-3,000 watt suitcase generator; a Stihl leaf blower for $200; a Stihl weed trimmer for $300; a second Craftsman weed trimmer for $200; $150 for a boat battery; $200 for tie down straps and a tow rope; $400 for a Husqvarna chainsaw; and $25 each for two fishing rods. He also testified to miscellaneous tools he had acquired over twenty years, to include 18-volt DeWalt tools, a circular saw, a hammer drill, a regular drill, and an unused Sawzall.

In addition, the state admitted multiple photographic exhibits. Victim's daughter (Daughter) testified she took the photos of the UTV, the items in the bed of the UTV, and some of the items taken out of the back of the UTV where they were initially found so she had “close-up” images for her father. Both Victim and Daughter testified the items were usually put away in the garage, and not stored in the bed of the UTV. Victim testified his garage is “highly organized,” and he is “hypervigilant” regarding where things go. He said all his tools would normally be in a “designated spot.”

In light of the detailed testimony of the brand and value of the items and photographic evidence depicting their condition, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably determined the value and condition of the items stolen and concluded they had a combined value of $750 or more. Turner's sole point on appeal is denied.

Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Turner was also convicted of two additional counts of stealing, one count of burglary, and one count of resisting arrest. However, he only appeals his conviction of count two, stealing $750 or more.

2.   All further statutory references are to RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2025).

Lisa P. Page, Presiding Judge

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Judge and Kathleen S. Hamilton, Judge concur.