Criminal
Constructive possession shown
On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts examined the evidence presented at trial, not the evidence absent from trial, and did not reweigh the evidence. Whether of controlled substances or of related paraphernalia, possession included the same elements: knowledge of the nature of the thing at issue and control, either actual or constructive. On a charge of trafficking, a finding of constructive possession had support in evidence that the defendant frequently entered the location where contraband and related paraphernalia, larger than for personal use, was located; that defendant possessed a large amount of cash; and defendant’s inconsistent explanations and later admissions.
State of Missouri vs. Cortez Cave
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86334
No support for self-defense instruction
The circuit court may submit a self-defense instruction only on substantial supporting evidence. The defendant alleged self-defense while in a custodial interview but did not offer any such evidence at trial. And, even if the defendant had offered the interview account at trial, it showed the defendant to be the initial aggressor and that the victim’s use of force was lawful, which negated self-defense. The circuit court did not err in submitting no self-defense instruction sua sponte.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Keith L. Hill, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112000
DWI
Driver was huffing gasoline
On a charge of driving under the influence of a drug, circumstantial evidence, meaning evidence that supports an inference, could be sufficient. Statute provided the foundation for admissibility of expert testimony, including the factors that determine reliability. Under those standards, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of an expert, by training and experience, on the effects of gasoline intoxication generally. Specifically, an opinion that driver was intoxicated on gasoline fumes did not likely make any difference in the jury’s findings, given other evidence of intoxication. The driver offered statements of his own and a non-expert witness that the driver was suffering from drug abuse or mental illness, which the circuit court excluded. The driver’s arguments on appeal were different from those offered on appeal, so the driver did not preserve any error, and overwhelming evidence of guilt made the rulings not outcome-determinative.
State of Missouri vs. Scott Alan Schwarz
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD85884