STATE v. KIMBE R 

### A B F substan circuit c o Paul co n controll e

1 A ll statu t Supplem e 

# In

OF MISS O

R LY PAUL , 

### A PPEAL F T H 

### B EFORE 

### D I V 

### V ICT O F ollowing a

ce of synth o urt sente n n tends the e d substan c

t ory referenc e e nt 2013, unl e 

# the M

O URI, R

, 

### F ROM T H H E 

### H ONOR A

V ISION 

### F O U O R 

### C. H O W

bench trial , etic mariju a n ced her to

State faile d c e. For re a

F A C

e s are to the e ss otherwis e 

# issou r West R esponde n Appella n 

### H E CIRC U

A BLE 

### P A U L U R 

### : J A ME S W ARD AND

, Kimberly P a na, a mis d forty-eight d to prove t h a sons expl a

C TUAL AND P

Revised Stat u e indicated. 

# r i Cou r ern Dist r

n t,

n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### U IT COU R

L 

### T. L UCK E S 

### E. W EL S 

### L ISA 

### W HI T P aul was c o d emeanor v

hours in th e h at she ha d a ined herei n

P ROCEDUR A

u tes of Miss o 

# r t of A p r ict

WD767 F ILED : J



### R T OF CL

ENBILL 

### , J R S H 

### , C HIEF 

### J T E 

### H A RD W o nvicted o f v iolation of e Clinton C d knowled g n , we affir m

A L H ISTORY

o uri 2000, as u 

# p peal s

69 J une 17, 2 

### INTON C R 

### ., J UDGE 

### J UDGE 

### P R W ICK 

### , J UD G

f possessin Section 19 C ounty Jail. g e of the n a m .

u pdated by t h 

# s

2 014



### OUNTY

R ESIDING 

### , G ES

g the contr o 5.202. 1 T h On appe a a ture of the

h e Cumulativ e o lled h e a l,

e2 On November 22, 2011, Chief Glen Garton and Officer Dennis Banks of the Lathrop police department, went to Paul's residence in connection with an unrelated matter. Chief Garton knocked on the door of Paul's residence and identified himself. Paul opened the door and invit ed the officers in. While inside, Chief Garton observed what appeared to be the burnt end of a mar ijuana cigarette in an ashtray on Paul's kitchen table. Chief Garton seized the cigarette, which was later determined by laboratory analysis to contain .03 gr ams of synthetic cannabinoid. The State subsequently charged Paul with the class A misdemeanor of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.202, alleging that "on or about November 22, 2011 . . . the defendant possessed a synthetic cannabinoid (synthetic marijuana), . . . k nowing of its presence and natur e." Following a bench trial, the circuit court denied Paul's motion for j udgment of acquittal and took the case under advisement. On August 6, 2013, the court en tered its final judgment and sentence, finding Paul guilty of possession of a contro lled substance and sentencing her to fortyeight hours in jail. 2 Paul appeals. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW Paul's point on appeal challenges the su fficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of th e evidence in a court-tried criminal case, we apply the same standard as in a jury-tried case. State v. Sladek, 835 S.W.2d 308, 310 (Mo. banc 1992). Our role is limited to determining whether the State presented sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could have reas onably found the defendant guilty beyond a r easonable doubt. State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc

2 The circuit court's final judgment was entered as a result of this Court's dismissal of Paul's previous appeal for lack of a final judgment. State v. Paul , 401 S.W.3d 591 (Mo. App. 2013).3 2002). We consider the evidence and inferenc es in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 407–08. A NALYSIS In her sole point on appeal, Paul contends t he circuit court erred in failing to grant her motion for acquittal because the evidenc e was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had k nowledge of the nature of the controlled substance found in her kitchen. Section 195.202 provides that it is unl awful for any person to possess or have under his control a controlled substance. In 2011, the statutory de finition of "controlled substance" was amended to include "synthetic cannabinoids." § 195.017.2(4)(ll). "To sustain a conviction for possession of a contro lled substance, the St ate must prove the following two elements: (1) conscious and in tentional possession of the substance, either actual or constructive; and (2) aw areness of the presence and nature of the substance." State v. Taylor , 407 S.W.3d 153, 159 (Mo. A pp. 2013); § 195.010(34). Here, Paul does not dispute that she had possession of the controlled substance, nor does she dispute that she wa s aware of such possession. Rather, Paul argues that she "lacked the knowledge of the nature of the drug found in her home." The crux of Paul's argument is that she "had no knowledge of the presence of an illegal substance in her home." (Emphasis added). She notes that the po ssession of synthetic marijuana did not become illegal until August 28, 2011, after the pa ssage of H.R. 641, 96th General Assembly, Regular Session (Mo. 2011). Paul presented testimony at trial that she hosted a "card party" at her home on November 17, 2011. When Paul left her party briefly "for a beer run," her guests called4 her and asked if they could burn "K2" or "Mr. Happy" — both brand names for synthetic marijuana. One of Paul's guests had purchased the "Mr. Happy" at a gas station. Paul testified that she instructed her guests to wait until she got home because she was not familiar with the product. When Paul returned home, she inspected the package. Paul testified that the substance's label warned that its contents were "not for human consumption," and that the label stated "probably three times" t hat its contents were "one hundred percent legal." After reading the "Mr. Happy" packa ge, Paul allowed the cigarette to be burned in the ashtray "like . . . incense." Paul testified that no one actually smoked the substance. The flaw in Paul's argument is that t he State was not require d to prove that she knew the subject substance was illegal. The Narcotic Drug Act previously defined "possessing a controlled substance" as o ccurring when "a person, with the knowledge of the presence and illegal nature of a subst ance, has actual or constructive possession of the substance." § 195.010(33), RSMo 1997. The Act, however, has since been amended to delete the word "illegal" from the definition of possession. § 195.010(34). Thus, while the State is required to pr ove that the defendant had knowledge of the general character of the substance — "i.e., t hat the substance was a drug of some sort, and not just baking power" — the State is not required to prove that the defendant knew the substance was illicit. 32 Mo. Practice Series, Criminal Law §40.4, at 392 (2d ed. 2004). Consequently, Paul's arguments that s he believed the substance was legal must fail because a defendant's knowledge of the illegal st atus of a substance is irrelevant in a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance.I n substan incense that she While t h record i n beyond substan home, i t smoke m its cont e "hashis h S.W.2d stateme reason a was si m A ccordi n acquitta

T n addition t o ce, Paul a s ." To the e had knowl h ere was te s n the light m a reasona b ce found i n t was in an m arijuana. e nts as "ha s h ," which is 473, 473 ( M nts regardi a bly infer th a m ply incens e

n gly, the c o l. The poi n

T he judgme o her argu m s serts that "

xtent Paul edge of th e s timony at m ost favor a b le doubt t h n her kitche

ashtray an d Additionall s h"— a co m

the resin e M o. banc 1 9 ng its legal a t Paul wa s e and that s o urt did not n t on appe a

nt of convi c m ents rega r

" she genui n is arguing t e substanc e trial suppo r a ble to the v h at Paul ha d n. When C d was rolle d y , Paul tes t m mon slan g e xtract of th

9 72). Fina ity. Based s not unde r s he was a w

err in failin g a l is denied

. C O c tion is affi r

5 r ding her i g n ely believ e t hat there w e 's general r ting Paul's v erdict, the d knowled g C hief Garto n

d up in a p a t ified that t h g term for m e cannabi s lly, the sub s on this evi d r the impre s w are of the s

g to sustai n

. O NCLUSION r med.

_ _______ _ L ISA W HIT E g norance o f e d the ciga r w as insuffic

character, position, w evidence i s g e of the g e n found th e a per in a m h e "Mr. Ha p m arijuana a s plant. Se e

stance's la b d ence, the s sion that t h s ubstance' s n Paul's m o

_ _______ _ E H ARDWIC K f the illegal i r ette contai ient eviden that argu m w hen prope

s sufficient e neral natu r e substanc e m anner co m

p py" packa g a nd the sho

e State v. R bel made m circuit cou r h e "Mr. Ha p s drug-like o tion for ju d

_ ________ _ K , J UDGE i ty of the ned a form ce to prov e m ent also fa

rly viewing to prove r e of the e in Paul's m monly use d

g e referred rt form of R eiley , 476 m ultiple r t could p py" produ c nature. d gment of

_ _______ _ of e

ils. the

d to to

c t

_ _ _6 A LL C ONCUR .