STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD36481
)
DEBRA KAY BAUMGARTNER, ) Filed: September 24, 2020
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY
Honorable Colin P. Long, Special Judge
AFFIRMED
Debra Kay Baumgartner (“Appellant”) appeals her convictions after a bench trial
for four counts of stealing, a violation of section 570.030. 1 Appellant contests the
sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions. We reject her claims and affirm
the judgment.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence from a bench-tried case, we
accept as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences
that support the verdict. State v. Shaw, 592 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Mo. banc 2019). All
1
All references to statutes are to RSMo 2016, unless otherwise specified.
1
contrary evidence and inferences are ignored. Id. “Evidence is sufficient to support a
conviction when there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder might
have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotations and
citation omitted). With that standard of review in mind we look to the elements of
stealing.
A person commits the offense of stealing if she, “[f]or the purpose of depriving
the owner of a lawful interest therein, . . . disposes of property of another knowing that it
has been stolen, or believing that it has been stolen.” Section 570.030.1(3). “Proof of the
offense may be based upon circumstantial evidence[,]” which is afforded the same weight
as direct evidence upon appellate review. State v. Middlemist, 319 S.W.3d 531, 534
(Mo.App. S.D.2010); State v. Williams, 455 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013).
The substantive evidence supporting the convictions includes that, at the time of
the robbery, four guns, which belonged to Appellant’s brother-in-law, were stolen and
subsequently hidden in a shed. Additionally, jewelry, two-dollar bills, and coins were
stolen. The police found the guns, jewelry and other coins in that shed. Appellant was
found to have a two-dollar bill on her person when searched by a deputy; 2 she initially
denied any knowledge of a robbery and claimed that her son had given her the items in
her possession. Subsequently, after her son implicated her, Appellant admitted to the
police that she had accompanied her son to the property where the stolen guns had been
hidden in a shed. Appellant also admitted to pawning certain items of jewelry that had
been stolen. The circumstantial evidence of Appellant being in possession of some of the
property stolen in the robbery at issue and the admissions by Appellant that she pawned
2
The deputy also testified that Appellant consented to a search of her vehicle wherein he located an
additional coin and some other $2 bills.
2
some of the jewelry, as well as accompanying her son to the hidden property, provide
sufficient evidence that a reasonable fact-finder might have found Appellant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of disposing of the property of the owner knowing that it had
been stolen or believing that it had been stolen.
The judgment is affirmed.
Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J. – Opinion Author
Daniel E. Scott, J. – Concurs
William W. Francis, Jr., J. – Concurs
3