Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)

Citation
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Parent Document
State Ex Rel. Girard v. Percich, 557 S.W.2d 25 (1977)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1977-08-30

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text

1,117 chars
Likewise, the conviction of petitioner McKenzie in the window breaking incident, though based entirely on circumstantial evidence, is supported by the evidence. There is no question that this destructive conduct violated the terms of the restraining order. The only real issue here is whether there was sufficient proof that McKenzie was responsible for the damage. We believe there was. The testimony of Winston Kratz, Jr. that the vehicle involved was similar to that in which McKenzie and Woodson were discovered, the close proximity in time and distance to the scene of the crime, as well as the unsolicited explanation of the motive for the window breaking by McKenzie showing his guilty knowledge of the crime established sufficient, cumulative interdependent facts to sustain McKenzie’s conviction. However, the case against petitioner Woodson rests only on his presence with McKenzie at the time their camper was halted. We find the evidence against Woodson insufficient to support his conviction for contempt, as it is not inconsistent *39 with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Gastaldi, supra.