Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hollingsworth

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 2, 1991No. WD 42557Published

1DissentUlrich, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Billy Hollings-worth was convicted by a jury of stealing by deceit in violation of § 570.030.3(1), RSMo 1986. The facts are not disputed. The issue is whether the evidence sufficiently proves Mr. Hollingsworth’s guilt.

Section 570.030, states in part:

1. A person commits the crime of stealing if he appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him thereof, either without his consent or by means of deceit or coercion.

(Emphasis added). Thus, the essential elements of stealing under the statute are (1) an appropriation of property or services of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Theiss v. WeissSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
  3. State v. RellihanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API