STATE 

v. 

KIMBER

 

A

B

F

substan

circuit co

Paul con

controlle

 

1 All statut

Suppleme

In 

OF MISSO

RLY PAUL,

APPEAL F

TH

BEFORE DIV

VICTO

Following a 

ce of synth

ourt senten

ntends the 

ed substanc

 

tory reference

ent 2013, unle

the M

OURI, 

R

,

FROM TH

HE HONORA

VISION FOU

OR C. HOW

bench trial,

etic marijua

nced her to 

State failed

ce. For rea

FAC

 

es are to the 

ess otherwise

issour

West

Responden

Appellan

HE CIRCU

ABLE PAUL

UR: JAMES

WARD AND 

, Kimberly P

ana, a misd

forty-eight 

d to prove th

asons expla

CTUAL AND P

Revised Statu

e indicated. 

ri Cour

ern Distr

nt,

nt.

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

UIT COUR

L T. LUCKE

S E. WELS

LISA WHIT

Paul was co

demeanor v

hours in the

hat she had

ained herein

PROCEDURA

utes of Misso

rt of Ap

rict 

WD767

FILED: J

RT OF CL

ENBILL, JR

SH, CHIEF J

TE HARDW

onvicted of

violation of 

e Clinton C

d knowledg

n, we affirm

AL HISTORY

ouri 2000, as u

ppeals

69 

June 17, 2

INTON C

R., JUDGE

JUDGE PR

WICK, JUDG

f possessin

Section 19

County Jail. 

ge of the na

m. 

updated by th

s

2014 

OUNTY 

RESIDING,

GES 

g the contro

5.202.1 Th

 On appea

ature of the 

he Cumulative

olled 

he 

al, 

e
2 

 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 invited the officers in. While inside, Chief Garton observed 

what appeared to be the burnt end of a marijuana cigarette in an ashtray on Paul's 

kitchen table. Chief Garton seized the cigarette, which was later determined by 

laboratory analysis to contain .03 grams 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), . . . knowing of its presence and nature." Following a bench trial, 

the circuit court denied Paul's motion for judgment of acquittal and took the case under 

advisement. On August 6, 2013, the court entered its final judgment and sentence, 

finding Paul guilty of possession of a controlled substance and sentencing her to fortyeight hours in jail.2

 Paul appeals. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Paul's point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her 

conviction. In reviewing the sufficiency of the 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 reasonably found the defendant 

guilty beyond a reasonable 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 inferences in the light most favorable to the 

verdict, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. at 407–08. 

ANALYSIS

In her sole point on appeal, Paul contends the circuit court erred in failing to grant 

her motion for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance 

found in her kitchen. 

Section 195.202 provides that it is unlawful for any person to possess or have 

under his control a controlled substance. In 2011, the statutory definition of "controlled 

substance" was amended to include "synthetic cannabinoids." § 195.017.2(4)(ll). "To 

sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove the 

following two elements: (1) conscious and intentional possession of the substance, 

either actual or constructive; and (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the 

substance." State v. Taylor, 407 S.W.3d 153, 159 (Mo. App. 2013); § 195.010(34). 

 Here, Paul does not dispute that she had possession of the controlled 

substance, nor does she dispute that she was 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 possession of synthetic 

marijuana did not become illegal until August 28, 2011, after the passage 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 called 
4 

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" that its contents were "one hundred percent 

legal." After reading the "Mr. Happy" package, 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 the State was not required to prove that she 

knew the subject substance was illegal. The Narcotic Drug Act previously defined 

"possessing a controlled substance" as occurring when "a person, with the knowledge 

of the presence and illegal nature of a substance, 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 prove that the defendant had knowledge of the 

general character of the substance — "i.e., that 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 she believed the substance was legal must 

fail because a defendant's knowledge of the illegal status of a substance is irrelevant in 

a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance. 
 In

substan

incense

that she

While th

record in

beyond 

substan

home, it

smoke m

its conte

"hashish

S.W.2d 

stateme

reasona

was sim

Accordin

acquitta

T

n addition to

ce, Paul as

." To the e

 had knowl

here was tes

n the light m

a reasonab

ce found in

t was in an 

marijuana. 

ents as "has

h," which is 

473, 473 (M

nts regardi

ably infer tha

mply incense

ngly, the co

l. The poin

The judgme

o her argum

sserts that "

xtent Paul 

edge of the

stimony at 

most favora

ble doubt th

n her kitche

ashtray and

Additionall

sh"— a com

the resin e

Mo. banc 19

ng its legal

at Paul was

e and that s

ourt did not 

nt on appea

nt of convic

ments regar

"she genuin

is arguing t

e substance

trial suppor

able to the v

hat Paul had

n. When C

d was rolled

y, Paul test

mmon slang

extract of th

972). Fina

ity. Based 

s not under

she was aw

err in failing

al is denied.

CO

ction is affir

5 

rding her ig

nely believe

that there w

e's general 

rting Paul's 

verdict, the 

d knowledg

Chief Garton

d up in a pa

tified that th

g term for m

e cannabis

lly, the subs

on this evid

r the impres

ware of the s

g to sustain

. 

ONCLUSION

rmed. 

_________

LISA WHITE

gnorance of

ed the cigar

was insuffic

character, 

 position, w

evidence is

ge of the ge

n found the

aper in a m

he "Mr. Hap

marijuana a

s plant. See

stance's lab

dence, the 

ssion that th

substance's

n Paul's mo

_________

E HARDWICK

f the illegali

rette contai

ient eviden

that argum

when prope

s sufficient 

eneral natur

e substance

manner com

ppy" packag

and the sho

e State v. R

bel made m

circuit cour

he "Mr. Hap

s drug-like 

otion for jud

__________

K, JUDGE

ity of the 

ned a form

ce to prove

ment also fa

rly viewing 

to prove 

re of the 

e in Paul's 

mmonly used

ge referred

rt form of 

Reiley, 476 

multiple 

rt could 

ppy" produc

nature. 

dgment of 

_________

 of 

e

ils. 

the 

d to 

 to 

ct 

___
6 

ALL CONCUR.