STATE v. KRIPPELCZ (2026)

Timothy Krippelcz (Defendant) was charged by amended information in the circuit court of Greene County, Missouri, with one count of assault in the first degree (Count 1), and one count of robbery in the first degree (Count 2). See § 565.050; § 570.023.¹ Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of both counts and sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Defendant challenges only Count 2, the robbery conviction. In Defendant's sole point, he contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment and sentence against him for robbery in the first degree, as “there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [Defendant] had the purpose of overcoming resistance to keeping the soda when he struck the attendant in a confrontation that occurred after [Defendant] dropped the soda, which spilled on the parking lot.” Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual Background

On September 7, 2023, Defendant entered a Conoco convenience store in Springfield, Missouri. Defendant, who was homeless at the time, then asked the employee behind the counter (Victim) for some water and explained that he did not have any money. After Victim refused, Defendant took a store cup, filled it with soda, and walked out without paying. As Defendant exited, Victim told him “no” and to “wait,” then followed him outside.

Once outside, Defendant retrieved belongings he had left near the store. Victim confronted Defendant, who initially turned and began walking away while still holding the cup of soda. After Victim followed him for several steps, Defendant stopped, turned, dropped his belongings, and struck Victim with his right hand, causing Victim to fall. Defendant then kicked Victim several times and, after a brief pause, stomped on Victim's head. Defendant then picked up his belongings and left the scene while Victim remained on the ground.

Victim was later transported to the hospital by ambulance, where he presented as largely unintelligible, with facial swelling, blood coming from his ear, and blood around his teeth and lips. Upon further evaluation, CT scans revealed intracranial bleeding in multiple areas of his brain.

At trial, the parties disputed whether Defendant retained or abandoned the stolen cup after the altercation. The jury was shown several videos. These included security camera footage of the interaction inside the convenience store, “grainy” surveillance footage of the confrontation outside the store, which had been obtained from a neighboring business’ exterior camera, as well as body-worn camera footage from the responding officer. The body-camera footage showed a broken white cup on the ground near a “fresh” blood stain where the altercation occurred.

Defendant testified that when he dropped his belongings to strike Victim, the soda spilled onto the parking lot. He stated that after the altercation, he retrieved only his personal belongings, leaving the cup and spilled soda behind.

The jury was given the following instruction for robbery in the first degree:

As to Count [2], if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that on or about September 7, 2023, in the State of Missouri, the defendant took a fountain drink, which was property in the charge of the Conoco convenience store[,] and

Second, that defendant did so for the purpose of withholding it from the owner permanently, and

Third, that defendant in doing so used physical force on or against [Victim] for the purpose of overcoming resistance to the keeping of the property immediately after the taking, and

Fourth, that in the course of taking the property, the defendant caused serious physical injury to [Victim],

then you will find the defendant guilty under Count II of robbery in the first degree.

The jury was also instructed on two lesser-included offenses of robbery in the second degree and stealing. The jury found Defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, “this Court does not weigh the evidence but rather accepts as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignores all contrary evidence and inferences.” State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal brackets and citations omitted); see State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883, 898 (Mo. banc 2015). Our inquiry is not an assessment of whether this Court believes the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Mo. banc 2011). We do not act as a “super juror” with “veto powers,” but rather give “great deference to the trier of fact[,]” who “may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case.” Id.

Discussion and Decision

A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree when he or she, inter alia, “forcibly steals property and in the course thereof ․ [c]auses serious physical injury to any person[.]” § 570.023.1(1). A person “forcibly steals” when he or she, “in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person” for the purpose of “[p]reventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking[.]” § 570.010(13)(a).²

Defendant does not dispute that there was sufficient evidence that he stole the soda from the Conoco convenience store. Rather, he only contends that there was insufficient evidence to show that he used physical force against Victim for the purpose of overcoming resistance to his retention of the soda. Defendant takes the position that his case is akin to State v. Kelly, 43 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. 2001), in that he abandoned the stolen property before using physical force against Victim. We disagree.

“The rule in Missouri has traditionally been that the force, violence or intimidation necessary to prove robbery must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking of the property.” Id. at 349; see State v. Whittaker, 551 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Mo. App. 2018). This changed in 1979 when the criminal code was amended “to require ‘forcible stealing’ for the crime of robbery.” Whittaker, 551 S.W.3d at 502. The “force, violence or intimidation” could then occur after the act of taking the property, as long as such force was used “in the course of stealing” such as “immediately after the taking in an effort to overcome resistance to retention of the property.” Kelly, 43 S.W.3d at 349. “In other words, the force being used immediately after the taking to thwart attempts to prevent retention of the property is part of a whole, single transaction.” Id.; see Yancy, 779 S.W.2d at 715.

In Kelly, the defendant was charged with first-degree robbery after an incident at a department store. Kelly, 43 S.W.3d at 345. The defendant and another man went into the store and took clothes off of the racks. Id. As they were leaving, the security guard tried to stop them. Id. The defendant dropped the stolen clothes and ran. Id. The security guard ran outside to the defendant's car to try to stop the men from getting away, at which point the defendant pointed a gun at her face. Id. at 346. The security guard backed away, and the men fled. Id.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not establish that he used force or a weapon against the security guard “in the course of taking property” but only “after he had dropped the property and no longer had control over it.” Id. at 347. The western district of this Court agreed, stating:

[T]he record is devoid of any evidence that [the defendant] or his partner used any force or threatened the use thereof at the time of confrontation. Rather, it is clear they dropped the clothes and ran. They used no force nor did they threaten the use of force in order to retain the property. They simply left the clothes and tried to make their escape. At this point, the taking was over, and [the defendant] and his partner had abandoned their attempt to retain the property. The record is clear that, as of that time, no force or threat was used.

Id. at 349 (italics in original).

Here, we find Kelly to be distinguishable. Unlike in Kelly, Defendant used force at the time of confrontation and immediately after the taking of the soda for the purpose of retaining it. See § 570.010(13)(a). Defendant still had the soda in his hand when he was confronted by Victim. Defendant did not drop the soda and run. Rather, he stayed and continued his use of physical force against Victim, even after Victim was already on the ground. Further, unlike in Kelly, it is not unreasonable for a jury to conclude that Defendant did not abandon the stolen property. Defendant himself testified that he dropped the soda because “I felt like I needed to defend myself.” In Kelly, on the other hand, it was clear that the defendant there abandoned the property prior to his use of force and intimidation.

While the court in Kelly placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the defendant was no longer in physical possession of the property when force was used, physical possession is not a requirement. See Whittaker, 551 S.W.3d at 504-05. As previously stated, a person “forcibly steals,” and thereby commits robbery, when he or she, “in the course of stealing, uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person[.]” See § 570.010(13)(a) (italics added). The phrase “in the course thereof” is a broad phrase that “covers the whole transaction or occurrence.” Yancy, 779 S.W.2d at 715. The jury could have reasonably found that Defendant was in the course of stealing when the altercation occurred, as he had only just exited the store and collected his belongings when confronted by Victim. See § 570.023; see, e.g., Whittaker, 551 S.W.3d at 504-05 (finding it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude the defendant was still in the course of stealing when he threatened the victim with a knife immediately after being confronted and that the stolen property was still within the defendant's control as he had removed it from the victim's truck and placed it on the ground).

We need only determine whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found Defendant guilty. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d at 812. The fact that Defendant dropped the soda on the ground and, therefore, did not have physical possession of it, does not prove that he abandoned any attempt to retain possession. The jurors reasonably could have found, based upon Defendant's testimony, that he dropped the soda because “I felt like I needed to defend myself[,]” and that he intended to keep the soda and only spilled it when he began to assault Victim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for robbery in the first degree.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory references are to RSMo (2016), unless otherwise specified.

2.   All references to § 570.010(13)(a) are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2023).

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. BRYAN E. NICKELL, J.