by dcooley on December 7, 2008
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
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.
by dcooley on December 6, 2008
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
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.
