Opinion ID: 6110346
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Gant and Carrawell and Lack of Prejudice

Text: The State disputes the search of Mr. Hughes' bag was unconstitutional under either Gant or Carrawell . While the State does not concede the rule in Carrawell would apply to the facts here, it argues because this search took place before Carrawell was decided, the exclusionary rule could not apply as the officers would have been acting in reasonable reliance on pre- Carrawell Missouri precedent. 2 The defense responds Carrawell simply applied Gant , which was the law long before the search and seizure at issue here. No police officer could reasonably rely on pre- Carrawell state law allowing seizure inconsistent with Gant as the latter is a United States Supreme Court decision and therefore was and is controlling. Resolution of this interesting legal question is not necessary to the determination of this case. On appeal Mr. Hughes argues only that the circuit court erred in admitting physical evidence of drugs and drug paraphernalia at trial and that, as a result, all the physical evidence should have been suppressed. Even were Mr. Hughes right that the circuit court erred in failing to suppress all physical evidence, however, any error was not prejudicial because other evidence, which Mr. Hughes does not allege was erroneously admitted, fully supports the judgment reached by the circuit court. After asking Officer Murphy about the factual circumstances relevant to whether the bag was in Mr. Hughes' control, defense counsel then asked directly about whether drugs were found in the bag: DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your partner's the one who searched the bag? OFFICER MURPHY: Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL: He did that in your presence? OFFICER MURPHY: Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And this was while Mr. Hughes was in cuffs? OFFICER MURPHY: Yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your officer--your partner found the suspected narcotics in the bag? OFFICER MURPHY: Correct. DEFENSE COUNSEL: And suspected paraphernalia? OFFICER MURPHY: Correct.  Defense counsel also stipulated to the admission of the laboratory report, and the report showed the testing of the items found in the bag and the drugs taken from Mr. Hughes' pocket were cocaine and heroin. As this evidence was sufficient to support the judgment, no prejudice could have resulted from overruling the motion to suppress the actual physical evidence seized. The Court further notes there is nothing to suggest the inferred agreement to have a continuing objection to evidence introduced by the prosecutor about the evidence seized extended to evidence affirmatively introduced by defense counsel herself though her own questioning. Defendants waive any objections to evidence made a part of the record through their own questioning, even if counsel's actions in doing so were for a strategic reason. Matter of Brown v. State, 519 S.W.3d 848 , 860 (Mo. App. 2017) ; In re Berg, 342 S.W.3d 374 , 384 (Mo. App. 2011) ; State v. Collins, 587 S.W.2d 303 , 306 (Mo. App. 1979).