MODefense.com

Missouri Drug Possesion Conviction Reversed Due to Fourth Amendment Violation

dcooley — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:48:58 +0000

Missouri’s Southern District Appellate Court reversed Edward Dye’s conviction for drug possession, because of a trial court’s failure to suppress evidence of cocaine obtained as a result of a Poplar Bluff, Missouri, officer’s “Terry Stop” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The facts at trial indicated that an individual was panhandling, knocking on doors, and asking for rides. The officer dispatched to the area found Dye, who matched the description given, 300 feet away from the reported incident. The officer stopped his car, flashed his patrol lights, made contact with the defendant and said that he was going to pat him down for safety. The officer asked whether the defendant would, instead, perfer emptying his pockets himself. Dye pulled out a cigarette pack. The Officer was given permission to search the pack, and, inside, he found cocaine. Dye was convicted by a jury for cocaine possession.

The appellate court reversed. First, the officer’s “stop” was unconstitutional. While an officer is permitted to “Terry Stop” someone that he has a “reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts . . . is engaged in criminal activity,” this was impossible here. There was no evidence presented at trial that panhandling was even a municipal ordinance violation in Poplar Bluff. Thus, there was no criminal activity to engage in. Second, Dye’s consent to search was too close in time to the illegal detention as to make it voluntarily given. Consequently, the evidence should have been supressed by the trial court.

Although this was remanded for a new trial, the state will obviously dismiss this one. It doesn’t take an expert criminal defense lawyer to win a drug possession case when the cocaine is supressed at trial.

The Missouri Criminal Defense Law Opinion: State v. Edward L. Dye

The content on this post does not constitute legal advice and is for informational purposes only. You should not act upon the information presented on this website without seeking the advice of legal counsel. Should you wish to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney, please feel free to contact me directly.

Drug Evidence Inadmissible in Robbery Trial

dcooley — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:26:03 +0000

Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals held that the admission of evidence of “drugs and drug paraphernalia” was inadmissible in a robbery trial, without corroborating evidence of drug habit or addiction. The State argued that the drug evidence was admissible as evidence of motive. The Court, however, noted that the record lacked any specific evidence connecting drug use to the offense charged:

“While it is true that evidence of prior drug use may be admissible to explain the defendant’s motive to steal to support a drug habit, the state is not automatically entitled to assume that whenever a defendant is charged with the crime of stealing, evidence of other crimes bearing on motive is automatically admissible.”

View The Missouri Criminal Defense Law Opinion: State v. Johnny L. Allen

Missouri DWI Conviction Reversed Due To Insufficient Evidence

dcooley — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:27:59 +0000

Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals overturned the DWI conviction of Darrell Wilson due to insufficient evidence. The prosecuting attorney’s sole evidence at trial indicated that Wilson was involved in an accident, taken to the hospital, and, only then, given a blood alcohol test. Wilson’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .150. The Court overturned his conviction stating that a DWI conviction requires proof that Wilson was both driving a vehicle and intoxicated while doing so. Because proof of intoxication at the time of arrest, when remote from the operation of a vehicle, is insufficient by itself to sustain a DUI / DWI conviction, the Court was compelled to reverse the conviction.

View The Missouri Criminal Defense Law Opinion: State v. Darrell Wilson

Missouri Drug Possession Conviction Reversed and Charge Dismissed

dcooley — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:08:33 +0000

Missouri’s Eastern District Court of Appeals reversed Darryl Moses’s conviction for possession of drugs (cocaine) and ordered Moses discharged, after it found insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction.

The evidence at Moses’s trial indicated that he and another man fled the scene when police arrived to serve a search warrant at his mother’s residence. “The affidavit accompanying the warrant explained that a confidential informant had three times purchased drugs from two different persons at that address in the past week, though the informant did not identify Moses as one of the sellers.” The officers’ search revealed cocaine on the kitchen table in plain view.

Moses was convicted of cocaine possession; however, Moses argued on appeal that, while he was aware of the drug’s presence, he did not maintain constructive possession. In order to prove constructive possession, the state must show that the “accused had the power and intention to exercise dominion or control over the substance either directly or through another person.” Because multiple people were at the scene and the residence was not owned by Moses himself, the state must have been able to point to some evidence that indicated Moses specifically intended to exercise control over the cocaine. The appellate court reversed the conviction and stated that Moses’s routine presence at the residence and his flight upon arrival of the police, alone, are not enough to sustain a jury’s guilty verdict.

View The Missouri Criminal Defense Law Opinion: State v. Darryl K. Moses