Court Opinion

ID: 9805861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:20:39.276979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:13.437536
License: Public Domain

DANIEL E. SCOTT, J.,
concurring.
Of necessity, “our opinions often cite facts that we cannot consider in deciding if any evidence supports the judgment” because outside readers may need context to understand a case. Smith v. Great American Assur. Co,, 436 S.W.3d 700, 705 (Mo.App.2014). Even so, we have tunnel vision in checking sufficiency of evidence, considering only what aids the respondent and ignoring all else because “if evidence does support the judgment, no amount of counter-proof erases it.” Id.
This case so viewed, like others cited in the principal opinion, “presents circumstances that might indicate that the defendant had knowledge of the [one-pot meth lab], but no circumstances that could indicate that the defendant exercised control over [it]. Evidence of both is required to support a conviction.” State v. Politte, 391 S.W.3d 537, 540 (Mo.App.2013). I concur.