Court Opinion

ID: 9684496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:59:10.920571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:10.851930
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the charge of possession of a controlled substance. However, I believe there was evidence of defendant’s constructive possession of methamphetamine, and therefore, the state presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.
*276Pursuant to section 195.010(34), “a person, with the knowledge of the presence and nature of a substance, has actual or constructive possession of the substance.” The majority notes that only wife, and not defendant, had actual physical possession of a controlled substance. However, pursuant to section 195.010(34), actual possession is not required. The statute states that a person, not in actual possession, may be in constructive possession where that person has the power and intention to exercise dominion .or control over the substance. “ ‘Constructive possession requires, at a minimum, evidence that [defendant had access to and control over the premises where the drugs were found.’” State v. Bacon, 156 S.W.3d 372, 378; (quoting State v. Morris, 41 S.W.3d 494, 497 (Mo.App.2000)).
As the majority notes, where the premises are jointly possessed, there must be additional evidence of other incriminating circumstances to permit an inference of knowledge or control over the substance. Bacon, 156 S.W.3d at 378 (citation omitted). This includes, “ ‘routine access to an area where such substances are kept, the presence of large quantities of the substance at the scene where [defendant] is arrested, admissions of the accused, ... being in close proximity to drugs or drug paraphernalia in plain view of the police, [and the] mixture of defendant’s personal belongings with the drugs.’ ” Id.; (quoting Morris, 41 S.W.3d at 497).
In the present case, defendant was in joint control of the hotel room with his wife, and as the majority notes, there was only a small quantity of the substance found on the premises. Moreover, defendant did not make any admissions to incriminate himself. However, there is sufficient additional evidence to support an inference that he had knowledge of and control over the substance found in the room.
The majority concludes that the small quantity of methamphetamine found in the straw, and the fact that the residue was found in a straw, requires a conclusion that the substance was not in plain view and that defendant’s close proximity to the straw did not establish an inference of possession. I disagree. The straw, containing residue of a substance in it, was found on top of a dresser in the hotel room, which also held the television. There were no separate areas in the room, other than the bathroom, and defendant was sitting on one of the beds in the hotel room. Regardless of the amount of substance contained in the straw, defendant was in close proximity to the straw which contained the substance, and the straw containing the substance was in plain view of the police. The officers also found a piece of aluminum foil with burned residue either next to or in a trash can in the room. Field tests on the foil indicated a positive result for methamphetamine. The foil was also in plain view of the police, and in close proximity to defendant.
In addition to defendant’s proximity to the controlled substance and the fact that the substance was in plain view, Officer Schleuter testified that they found several other items in the room which were associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine. A list was found in a notebook in defendant’s pocket which contained items used in the production of methamphetamine. One of the items had been crossed off the list, and that item was found in the hotel room. Additionally, Officer Schleu-ter testified that a box of aluminum fob and a bag containing individual packets of salt were found in the room. He stated that the foil can be used to package methamphetamine or to use it. Officer Schleu-ter also noted that salt can be combined *277with muriatic acid, an item on the list in defendant’s notebook, as part of the process of manufacturing methamphetamine.
The majority determined that the evidence of the list found in defendant’s pocket may possibly be relevant to a charge of manufacturing, but did not show defendant’s knowledge of the presence of or control over a controlled substance. However, given the evidence regarding the items listed in the notebook found in defendant’s pocket, coupled with the additional evidence of other items found in the room which were associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine, sufficient additional evidence of “incriminating circumstances” was presented to raise an inference of defendant’s knowledge and control over the controlled substance in the hotel room.
Based upon the evidence of defendant’s constructive possession of methamphetamine, the state presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction of possession of a controlled substance. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The majority’s review of defendant’s first claim on appeal was dispositive, and therefore, the majority does not reach the two remaining points on appeal. Because I believe the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, I will briefly address each point. Neither point was preserved for review, and therefore they may be reviewed only for plain error. State v. Presberry, 128 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Mo.App.2003); (citing Supreme Court Rule 30.20).
In his second point on appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Officer Schleuter regarding his observations of defendant pri- or to the execution of the search warrant at the Budget Host Inn. The evidence of Officer Schleuter’s observations of defendant prior to his arrest was part of the sequence of events which led to the securing of the search warrant for the Budget Host Inn. Its probative value in explaining the events outweighs any potential prejudice. Thus, the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in admitting such testimony.
In his third point on appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence of items seized from his car and in admitting testimony concerning the potential use of the items. As the majority notes, a digital scale, a night vision device, and two radios were found in the vehicle. Officer Schleuter testified that the digital scale is often used in the weighing of different items “indicative with drug use.” With respect to the night vision device and the radios, Officer Schleuter testified that these items were seized because they have been used in the past by people stealing anhydrous ammonia, which is used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Here, the evidence of the items recovered from the vehicle, and the testimony regarding their potential use in obtaining materials to produce methamphetamine, was relevant to the crime with which defendant was charged. Additionally, while Officer Schleuter’s testimony concerning the potential for use of the items to steal material used for production of methamphetamine may have been prejudicial, its probative value outweighed any potential prejudicial effect. Thus the trial court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in admitting such testimony.
As a result of the foregoing, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.