State Vs. Shoemaker Essay Example For Students

State Vs. Shoemaker Essay State of Kansas, Appelle, vs. Joe Shoemaker, Appellant The 1980 Kansas State Supreme Court case of State of Kansas, Appelle, v. Joe Shoemake, Appellant, the defendant, Joe Shoemake, was charged with three counts of aggravated robbery of three persons and two counts of felony theft involving two automobiles. In New York State that would be considered as follows:160.10, Robbery in the second degree, would be classified as; A person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property and when: 1. He is aided by another person actually present; or 2. In the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (b) Displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or 3. The property consists of a motor vehicle, as defined in section one hundred twenty-five of the vehicle and traffic law. Robbery in the second degr ee is a class C felony. We will write a custom essay on State Vs. Shoemaker specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now 165.08 Unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree. A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree when knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle with the intent to use the same in the course of or the commission of a class A, class B, class C or class D felony or in the immediate flight therefrom. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent. On the night of August 21, 1979, in Kansas City, Missouri, a 1972 Ford Torino, color yellow, was stolen from a residence. Four nights later, August 25, 1979, a second car, a green, 1972 Ford Torino was stolen from a parking lot in Wyandotte County, Missouri. At around 7:00p.m., on the night of August 25, 1979, John Lucas was seen by an employee working at Nigros Supermarket, driving a yellow Ford Torino through the parking lot of the store. Shortly after that, Lucas was seen in the green Torino , sitting in front of the supermarket. Moments later, Lucas proceeded to enter the supermarket, approach the manager, brandish a pistol, and demand money from him. After receiving the money from the manager, Lucas then proceeded to steal money from a second cash register in the store. Lucas then forced the manager into the stores office where he was able to obtain more money. The money was placed in a sack provided by an employee who earlier saw Lucas in the yellow Torino. Lucas then exited the store and fled in the green Torino. The stores employees accurately identified both of the cars, and also gave a description and positively identified Lucas as the robber. Also, two customers present in the store during the robbery identified Lucas as the robber. After the Kansas City Police Department was informed of the robbery, they alerted their officers to be on the lookout for both vehicles. An officer attempted to stop a yellow Ford Torino that matched the description. However, after the officer activated both lights and sirens, the automobile failed to pull over. A pursuit of 10 minutes then ensued, until the yellow Torino collided with parked cars causing it to have a flat tire. When approaching the car, the officer saw the driver, later identified as Shoemake, with one passenger, Lucas. In the car, the police found, the money, coupons, receipts, and checks payable to Nigros Supermarket on both the driver and passenger floor mates. Police also discovered a pistol under the drivers seat, and a slide hammer, tool used to remove ignition lock, in the rear of the automobile. The ignition was still attached to the slide hammer, with the key in it. Police later discovered the green Torino two blocks away from the supermarket with the engi ne still running. Shoemake and Lucas were charged as codefendants on two counts of felony theft involving the Torinos. Also, both men were additionally charged with three counts of aggravated robbery for the three persons at the supermarket. On November 6, 1979, a jury found defendant Shoemake guilty on all five counts that faced him. Shoemake later appealed. .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .postImageUrl , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:hover , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:visited , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:active { border:0!important; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:active , .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8 .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u8de90e5cc6dbaaedb66792ace8812fb8:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Cultural Conservation Essay The defendant. Shoemake, felt that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of the money and other property that were recovered in the yellow Torino. The defendant maintains that the admission of the photographs was insufficient because it failed to comply with the K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 60-472 which provides for the admissibility of photographs or property taken in a criminal prosecution for theft where the property is returned to the owner.