Case Title: State v. Zetina-Torres

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC95194

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2016-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Respondent,  
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC95194 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
LUIS ZETINA-TORRES,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
Appellant.   
) 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SALINE COUNTY 
The Honorable Dennis A. Rolf, Judge 
 
Opinion issued March 1, 2016 
 
Luis Zetina-Torres (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the circuit court’s 
judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, section 
195.223.9(2), RSMo 2000.1  Appellant raises two points on appeal, challenging the 
sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and instructional error.  This Court 
holds there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction and there was no 
instructional error.  The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.2 
Factual and Procedural History  
 
On July 16, 2010, Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant Brooks McGinnis 
(hereinafter, “Sgt. McGinnis”) was working a “ruse” drug checkpoint on Interstate 70 in 
                                                 
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as supplemented. 
2 This Court transferred this case after an opinion by the Missouri Court of Appeals, 
Western District.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.  Portions of the court of appeals opinion are 
incorporated without further attribution.   
Saline County at the Route EE and K exit.  This operation entailed placing signs on the 
interstate informing drivers that a drug checkpoint was ahead when, in fact, no 
checkpoint existed.  The informational signs were in English and Spanish.  Sgt. McGinnis 
testified that the purpose of the “ruse” checkpoint is to try to elicit enough panic in drug 
traffickers that they exit the interstate early and draw attention to themselves.  Interstate 
70 was selected because it is a known drug corridor, and the signs were placed prior to a 
specific exit because it contained no services for motorists that would justify exiting the 
interstate prior to the “ruse” drug checkpoint. 
 
While conducting this operation, Sgt. McGinnis observed a black Nissan truck exit 
the interstate and travel north on Route EE.  Sgt. McGinnis followed the truck 
approximately thirteen miles until it reached the city limits of Marshall, Missouri.  At the 
city limit, the speed limit dropped, and the truck failed to adjust its speed.  Sgt. McGinnis 
stopped the truck for a speeding violation. 
 
Two men were inside the truck.  Appellant was the driver, and the passenger was 
Roberto Maldonado-Echeverria (hereinafter, “Maldonado”).3  Sgt. McGinnis explained 
the speeding violation, and Appellant apologized several times.  Both men in the truck 
appeared nervous and avoided eye contact when speaking to Sgt. McGinnis.  There was 
an overwhelming odor of a cologne-type air freshener, which Sgt. McGinnis testified 
typically is used as a masking agent to cover the odor of illegal drugs.  Further,               
Sgt. McGinnis noticed there was a single key in the ignition.  This was significant 
                                                 
3 The record below contains various spellings of Roberto Maldonado-Echeverria’s name; 
however, he is referred to primarily as “Maldonado.”  For ease of clarity, this Court refers 
to him in the same manner and intends no disrespect. 
3 
 
because in Sgt. McGinnis’ experience, drug traffickers often use a single key because 
they do not want their personal keys passed off when they deliver the vehicle to another 
person. 
Sgt. McGinnis asked for Appellant’s license, registration, and proof of insurance.  
Appellant produced a Sonora, Mexico, driver’s license.  Appellant stated he borrowed the 
truck from his friend, Mardonio.  The truck was registered to Benitez Mardonio 
Cardova,4 who resided at 7100 Longview Road in Kansas City (hereinafter, “the Kansas 
City address”).  The insurance card listed Mardonio Cardova Benitez and Hugo Rivera as 
the insured parties for the truck.  Maldonado produced a Mexican consular card for 
identification, but did not have a valid driver’s license.  Maldonado kept yawning, which 
Sgt. McGinnis was trained to recognize as a possible sign of nervousness. 
 
Appellant exited the truck and went to the patrol car so that Sgt. McGinnis could 
conduct computer checks on both men and the truck.  Sgt. McGinnis spoke to Appellant 
while he conducted the computer checks and had no difficulty communicating with 
Appellant.5  Appellant told Sgt. McGinnis they were going to Marshall to pick up another 
truck from a friend and, then, they were going to take it back to Kansas City to work on 
the engine.  Appellant did not identify his friend.  Appellant referred to Maldonado as 
“Berto” and stated he had known Berto for a year, but he did not know Berto’s last name 
or what he did for a living, although he did know Berto was not a mechanic.  The 
                                                 
4  The documents seized during the search contained different spellings and combinations 
of the names “Benitez,” “Mardondio,” and “Cardova.”   
5 Appellant was provided a Spanish-speaking translator during the lower court 
proceedings. 
4 
 
computer check revealed Maldonado’s license was suspended and there was a warrant 
out for his arrest.  When Sgt. McGinnis told Appellant about Maldonado’s suspended 
license, Appellant said Maldonado was just along for the ride.  Throughout the 
conversation, Appellant was nervous, avoided eye contact by looking out of the patrol car 
window, and gave delayed answers as though he was trying to remember certain 
information.   
Sgt. McGinnis then asked Appellant if there were any drugs or weapons in the 
truck, and Appellant replied, “No, you can check.”  Sgt. McGinnis confirmed that 
Appellant gave consent to search the truck.  Prior to conducting the search,                  
Sgt. McGinnis returned to the truck to speak to Maldonado.  Maldonado told               
Sgt. McGinnis they were going to Sedalia to see one of Appellant’s friends.  Maldonado 
said he had known Appellant for two or three months and that he did not know the name 
of Appellant’s friend in Sedalia.  Maldonado did not mention anything about picking up a 
truck to do engine repairs. 
Sgt. McGinnis then conducted a search of the truck.  The tailgate was locked 
despite containing an open truck bed, and the bed liner was sticking out of the rail lip.  
Sgt. McGinnis moved the bed liner and found a package behind the bed liner that 
contained 438.74 grams of wet methamphetamine, indicating it was “fairly fresh.”  The 
drugs had a wholesale value of $20,000 and a street value of approximately $43,000. 
Both men were arrested, and Sgt. McGinnis completed his search.   Sgt. McGinnis 
seized a laptop, the men’s cellular telephones, and a GPS device.  The GPS device was 
mounted on the passenger side of the truck and contained an address in Sedalia and the 
5 
 
Kansas City address.  A text message on Appellant’s prepaid cellular telephone also 
contained the Kansas City address.  Appellant’s wallet contained a bank card belonging 
to Mardonio Cardova Benitez and a Money Gram reward card belonging to Mardonio 
Cordova-Benitez.  Several documents inside the passenger door pocket contained the 
same names. 
Appellant was indicted on September 27, 2010.  The indictment charged Appellant 
with acting alone or knowingly in concert with another person to commit first-degree 
drug trafficking by transporting ninety grams or more of methamphetamine.  Appellant 
and Maldonado were tried separately.  At Appellant’s July 2011 jury trial, a criminalist 
testified Appellant’s fingerprint matched that of Mardonio Cardova Benitez.  The 
booking photographs of Appellant and Mardonio Cardova Benitez, which closely 
resembled each other, were also introduced into evidence.  This evidence was used to 
demonstrate Appellant was the actual owner of the truck and Appellant had knowledge of 
the methamphetamine hidden in the bed liner.  Appellant testified at trial that he was 
arrested previously and mistakenly booked as Mardonio Cardova Benitez.  Appellant was 
convicted of second-degree trafficking and sentenced to serve a life sentence.   
On appeal, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 
conviction, raising allegations of error concerning the state’s discovery violations and the 
circuit court’s refusal to grant Appellant a continuance because of the discovery 
violations.  The court of appeals found there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant 
of second-degree trafficking, but the court reversed and remanded the case due to the 
6 
 
state’s discovery violations and the circuit court’s error in refusing to grant Appellant a 
continuance.  State v. Zetina-Torres, 400 S.W.3d 343, 357-60 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).6   
Appellant was retried in February 2014.  The evidence was substantially similar to 
the evidence presented in his first trial and to the evidence presented at Maldonado’s trial.  
However, Appellant’s second trial differed from the first in that the second case was 
submitted on a theory of accomplice liability and required the jury to find Appellant 
guilty if it concluded that, with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of 
second-degree trafficking, Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado in 
committing that offense.  Appellant was convicted of second-degree trafficking and now 
appeals this conviction. 
Sufficiency of the Evidence 
Appellant argues the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of 
acquittal at the close of the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to prove 
beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of second-degree trafficking.  Appellant argues 
there was insufficient evidence presented that he possessed, had knowledge of, or was 
aware of the presence of the methamphetamine hidden under the truck’s bed liner or that 
                                                 
6 Maldonado had a bench trial in October 2011.  The circuit court found Maldonado 
guilty of second-degree trafficking and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ 
imprisonment.  On appeal, Maldonado challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support his conviction, specifically arguing there was insufficient incriminating evidence 
to show he had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine hidden in the bed liner.  
After considering the totality of the circumstances, the court of appeals reversed 
Maldonado’s conviction, finding there was insufficient evidence to permit the inference 
that he had knowledge and control of the methamphetamine.  State v. Maldonado-
Echieverra, 398 S.W.3d 61, 68 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).  
 
7 
 
Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado in committing second-degree 
trafficking.   
Standard of Review 
To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a 
conviction and to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court does not weigh 
the evidence but, rather, “accept[s] as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together 
with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore[s] all contrary evidence 
and inferences.”  State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting State 
v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Mo. banc 2008)).  “This Court’s review is limited to 
determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might 
have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 
157, 166 (Mo. banc 2011).  “This is not an assessment of whether this Court believes that 
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).   
Second-Degree Drug Trafficking 
 
Section 195.223.9 states a person commits second-degree drug trafficking if he or 
she possesses or has under his or her control, purchases or attempts to purchase, or brings 
into this state more than thirty grams of any material, compound, mixture or preparation 
that contains any quantity of methamphetamine.  A defendant commits a class A felony if 
8 
 
the quantity involved is ninety grams or more but less than four hundred fifty grams.  
Section 195.223.9(2).  “Possessed” or “possessing a controlled substance” is defined as: 
a person, with the knowledge of the presence and nature of a substance, has 
actual or constructive possession of the substance.  A person has actual 
possession if he [or she] has the substance on his [or her] person or within 
easy reach and convenient control.  A person who, although not in actual 
possession, has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise 
dominion or control over the substance either directly or through another 
person or persons is in constructive possession of it.  Possession may also 
be sole or joint.  If one person alone has possession of a substance 
possession is sole.  If two or more persons share possession of a substance, 
possession is joint[.] 
 
Section 195.010(34). 
 “To prove possession of a controlled substance, the state must show conscious 
and intentional possession of the substance, either actual or constructive, and awareness 
of the presence and nature of the substance.”  State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138, 146-47 
(Mo. banc 2012).  Possession and knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.  
State v. Fuente, 871 S.W.2d 438, 442 (Mo. banc 1994).  “Absent proof of actual 
possession, constructive possession may be shown when other facts buttress an inference 
of defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance.”  State v. Purlee, 
839 S.W.2d 584, 588 (Mo. banc 1992).  “Thus, proof of constructive possession requires, 
at a minimum, evidence that defendant had access to and control over the premises where 
the substance was found.”  Id.  Exclusive control of the premises raises an inference of 
possession and control of the substance.  Stover, 388 S.W.3d at 147.   
Here, both Appellant and Maldonado were in the truck with the 
methamphetamine.  When joint control of the premises or vehicle exists, the state is 
9 
 
required to demonstrate “some further evidence or admission connecting the accused 
with the illegal drugs.”  Purlee, 839 S.W.2d at 588.  There are several additional 
incriminating circumstances that would support an inference of a defendant’s knowledge 
and control of the controlled substance when joint possession exists:   
Finding a large quantity of drugs in the vehicle;  
 
Finding drugs having a large monetary value in the vehicle;  
 
Easy accessibility or routine access to the drugs;  
 
The odor of drugs in the vehicle;  
 
The presence of the defendant’s personal belongings in close proximity to 
the drugs;  
 
Making false statements in an attempt to deceive the police;  
 
The defendant’s nervousness during the search;  
 
The defendant’s flight from law enforcement;  
 
The presence of drugs in plain view;  
 
Other conduct and statements made by the accused; and  
 
The fact that the defendant rented the vehicle. 
 
Stover, 388 S.W.3d at 147 (quoting State v. Woods, 284 S.W.3d 630, 640 (Mo. App. 
W.D. 2009)).   
 
Appellant contends that mere ownership of the truck is insufficient to convict him.  
Appellant also argues he made no statements indicating consciousness of guilt.  
Appellant points out the state did not show any commingling of his personal items with 
drugs, there were no drugs in plain view, and Appellant consented to a search.  However, 
10 
 
this Court must look to all of the factors and the totality of the circumstances to analyze 
whether additional incriminating circumstances sufficiently connected Appellant to the 
methamphetamine hidden under the truck’s bed liner.  Stover, 388 S.W.3d at 147.   
 
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the state met its burden to show 
additional incriminating circumstances to support an inference of Appellant’s knowledge 
and control over the methamphetamine after examining the totality of the circumstances.  
A substantial quantity of methamphetamine with a large monetary value was found in the 
truck.  As the truck’s owner and operator, it was reasonable for a jury to infer that 
Appellant had easy access to the bed liner where the methamphetamine was found.  Once 
Sgt. McGinnis stopped the truck, he detected a strong cologne-like air freshener odor 
that, in his experience, was used as a masking agent for the drugs.  Appellant made 
numerous false statements to Sgt. McGinnis.  Appellant and Maldonado gave 
inconsistent statements about their destination, the purpose of the trip, and the length of 
their acquaintance.  Appellant also lied about the truck’s ownership.  Both men exhibited 
signs of nervousness, avoided eye contact, and Maldonado became extremely agitated 
when Sgt. McGinnis searched the truck.  Further, there was other conduct supporting an 
inference of knowledge and control over the methamphetamine in that Appellant used a 
single key and he succumbed to the “ruse” checkpoint by exiting the interstate prior to 
the checkpoint while traveling on a known drug corridor. 
 
The 
record 
contained 
substantial 
evidence 
linking 
Appellant 
to 
the 
methamphetamine in the truck’s bed liner beyond his ownership and mere presence in the 
vehicle.  The circuit court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for judgment of 
11 
 
acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence because the state proved all of the elements 
for second-degree trafficking under section 195.223.9. 
Accomplice Liability 
In the same point, Appellant argues the circuit court erred in overruling his motion 
for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove he acted together with or aided 
Maldonado in committing second-degree trafficking.  Appellant contends that the state 
submitted the case on the theory of accomplice liability and that the verdict director 
required the jury to find either Appellant or Maldonado possessed the methamphetamine 
and Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado in committing second-degree 
trafficking.  Appellant argues that the fact that Maldonado’s conviction was vacated 
demonstrates there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the two men acted 
together with or aided one another to commit second-degree trafficking. 
Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal argued the state failed to prove the 
elements of the crime alleged in the information and that the evidence was insufficient as 
a matter of law to support a finding of guilt.  Neither Appellant’s motion for judgment of 
acquittal nor the motion for new trial contained any specific allegation that the state failed 
to prove Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado to commit second-degree 
trafficking.  While the better practice is to preserve specific claims of error for review, 
arguments concerning sufficiency of the evidence, even those not preserved for appeal, 
are reviewed on the merits, not for plain error.  State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 362 
(Mo. banc 2015). 
Section 562.041.1(2) states: 
12 
 
A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another when … 
either before or during the commission of an offense with the purpose of 
promoting the commission of an offense, [one] aids or agrees to aid or 
attempts to aid such other person in planning, committing or attempting to 
commit the offense. 
 
The doctrine of accomplice liability embodied in section 562.041.1(2) “comprehends any 
of a potentially wide variety of actions intended by an individual to assist another in 
criminal conduct.”  State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Mo. banc 2000).  The evidence 
need not show the defendant personally committed every element of the crime to be 
convicted.  Id.  “[A]ny evidence that shows affirmative participation in aiding the 
principal to commit the crime is sufficient to support a conviction.”  State v. Wurtzberger, 
40 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Mo. banc 2001) (quoting State v. Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121, 139 (Mo. 
banc 1998)).  Moreover, “[a]ll persons who act together with a common intent and 
purpose in the commission of a crime are equally guilty.”  State v. Cella, 32 S.W.3d 114, 
118 (Mo. banc 2000).   
The United States Supreme Court recently held that when examining a sufficiency 
challenge, “[t]he reviewing court considers only the ‘legal’ question ‘whether, after 
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”  
Musacchio v. United States, No. 14-1095, 2016 WL 280757 at *5 (U.S. 2016) (quoting 
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).  
However, ‘[a] reviewing court’s limited determination on sufficiency review thus does 
not rest on how the jury was instructed.”  Id.  Accordingly, this Court will review 
13 
 
Appellant’s claim based upon how the crime was charged rather than examine the verdict 
director as Appellant urges.7 
Here, Appellant was charged with acting alone or knowingly in concert with 
Maldonado to commit first-degree drug trafficking by transporting ninety grams or more 
of methamphetamine.  Much of the evidence demonstrating Appellant’s possession of the 
methamphetamine 
equally 
supports 
a 
finding 
Maldonado 
possessed 
the 
methamphetamine, including:  a substantial quantity of methamphetamine with a large 
monetary value was found in the truck; a strong cologne-like air freshener odor used as a 
masking agent; multiple false statements made during the traffic stop; displays of 
nervousness and avoiding eye contact; and Maldonado’s extreme agitation after 
Appellant consented to Sgt. McGinnis searching the truck.  Further, it was reasonable for 
a jury to infer that Maldonado was directing or navigating Appellant’s driving route for 
delivery because the GPS device was mounted on the passenger side in Maldonado’s 
clear view.   
Appellant’s argument that Maldonado’s conviction was vacated is immaterial 
because it does not take into account section 562.046(1), which states:  
It is no defense to any prosecution for an offense in which the criminal 
responsibility of the defendant is based upon the conduct of another that 
[s]uch other person has been acquitted or has not been convicted or has 
been convicted of some other offense or degree of offense or lacked 
criminal capacity or was unaware of the defendant’s criminal purpose or is 
immune from prosecution or is not amenable to justice[.]    
 
                                                 
7 The United States Supreme Court was careful to point out that its opinion did “not 
suggest that an erroneous jury instruction cannot result in reversible error just because the 
evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.”  Id. at *5, n.2. 
14 
 
Thus, Maldonado’s vacated conviction had no bearing on the state’s ability to submit an 
accomplice liability theory to the jury or to posit, in the alternative, that Maldonado 
possessed the methamphetamine as an element in the verdict director.   
Within the context of sufficient evidence demonstrating Maldonado possessed the 
methamphetamine, the record amply supports a finding that Appellant acted together with 
or aided Maldonado in committing second-degree drug trafficking.  Appellant provided 
his vehicle to transport the methamphetamine and drove along the route Maldonado 
suggested.  Appellant exited prior to the “ruse” checkpoint and made multiple false 
statements to Sgt. McGinnis to avoid detection.   These actions constituted sufficient 
evidence to submit the case on an accomplice liability theory.  The circuit court did not 
err in overruling Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on these grounds. 
Instructional Error 
Appellant alleges the circuit court erred in submitting Jury Instruction No. 6 to the 
jury, which alleged Maldonado possessed the drugs and that Appellant “acted together 
with or aided [Maldonado]” in committing that offense.  Appellant argues this instruction 
misled and confused the jury because there was no evidence Appellant acted together 
with or aided Maldonado in committing second-degree trafficking and this was a disputed 
element at trial.  Appellant reiterates Maldonado’s conviction was vacated on appeal 
because there was insufficient evidence that Maldonado possessed the drugs on 
substantially similar evidence. 
 
 
15 
 
Standard of Review 
When reviewing claims of instructional error, this Court will reverse the circuit 
court’s decision only if the instructional error misled the jury and, thereby, prejudiced the 
defendant.  Nash, 339 S.W.3d at 511.  “[R]eversal is only warranted when the 
instructional error is so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.”  Id. at 
511-12 (quoting State v. Anderson, 306 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo. banc 2010)).  Prejudice 
occurs when an erroneous instruction may have influenced the jury adversely.  State v. 
Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Mo. banc 2005).  However, there is no prejudice if an 
instruction is an accurate statement of law and supported by the evidence.  State v. Avery, 
275 S.W.3d 231, 233 (Mo. banc 2009). 
Appellant did not object to Jury Instruction No. 6 at trial or raise any issue 
regarding the instruction in his motion for new trial.  Accordingly, this allegation of error 
has not been preserved for appeal.  Appellant requests plain error review.  When the 
unpreserved allegation concerns instructional error, plain error exists when it is clear that 
the circuit court has so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury that manifest injustice or 
miscarriage of justice has resulted.  State v. Ousley, 419 S.W.3d 65, 75 (Mo. banc 2013).    
Jury Instruction No. 6 
Jury Instruction No. 6, the verdict director, stated in pertinent part: 
A person is responsible for his own conduct and he is also responsible for 
the conduct of another person in committing an offense if he acts with the 
other person with the common purpose of committing that offense or if, for 
the purpose of committing that offense, he aids or encourages the other 
person in committing it. 
 
 
If you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: 
16 
 
 
First, that on or about July 16, 2010, in the County of Saline, State of 
Missouri, the defendant or [Maldonado] possessed 90 grams or more 
of 
any 
material 
or 
mixture 
containing 
any 
quantity 
of 
methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and  
 
Second, that defendant knew or was aware of the presence and 
nature of the controlled substance, 
 
then you are instructed that the offense of trafficking in the second degree 
has occurred, and if you further find and believe from the evidence beyond 
a reasonable doubt: 
 
Third, that with the purpose of promoting or furthering the 
commission of that trafficking in the second degree, the defendant 
acted together with or aided [Maldonado] in committed that offense,  
 
then you will find the defendant guilty of trafficking the second degree. 
 
“A verdict-directing instruction must contain each element of the offense charged 
and must require the jury to find every fact necessary to constitute essential elements of 
[the] offense charged.”  State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123, 125 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting 
State v. Doolittle, 896 S.W.2d 27, 30 (Mo. banc 1995)).  “A violation of due process 
arises when an instruction relieves the State of its burden of proving each and every 
element of the crime and allows the State to obtain a conviction without the jury 
deliberating on and determining any contested elements of that crime.”  Cooper, 215 
S.W.3d at 126.  “Plain error exists when an instruction omits an essential element and the 
evidence establishing the omitted element was seriously disputed.”  Stover, 388 S.W.3d 
at 154. 
Appellant does not dispute Jury Instruction No. 6 was in the proper form, only that 
it required the jury to find he acted together with or aided Maldonado when there was 
17 
 
insufficient evidence to support its submission.  However, as stated previously, there was 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate either Appellant or Maldonado had knowledge and 
control over the methamphetamine in the truck and that a jury could reasonably infer 
Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado to commit second-degree drug 
trafficking.  Finally, Maldonado’s vacated conviction is inconsequential because section 
562.046(1) provides Appellant with no defense to these charges.  The circuit court did not 
plainly err in submitting Jury Instruction No. 6 to the jury.   
Conclusion 
The circuit court’s judgment is affirmed. 
 
___________________________ 
GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JUDGE 
 
All concur.