Johnson v. Commonwealth
553 S.W.3d 213
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- On Jan. 26, 2016 police searched Dashawn Johnson's Henderson County residence after complaints and recent controlled buys; heroin, methamphetamine, and a handgun were found under a bed.
- Johnson, his wife, and a third person were present during the search.
- Johnson was indicted for two counts of first-degree trafficking (heroin and meth), felony possession of a firearm, and as a first-degree persistent felony offender.
- He waived a jury for the firearm count (bench trial) and was convicted; a jury convicted him on the remaining counts.
- Sentenced to a total of 20 years; he appealed raising suppression, double jeopardy, sufficiency/directed verdict, expert funding, and sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / suppression | Warrant invalid (minor inaccuracies in door color and name) and affidavit unreliable; search violated Fourth Amendment | Affidavit provided probable cause (police records, recent controlled buy, informant statement); discrepancies were minor | Warrant and search valid; no Fourth Amendment violation; handgun admissible (area under bed permissible for drugs) |
| Double jeopardy for two trafficking counts | Trafficking heroin and meth in same statutory subsection should be one offense; legislative change in 2017 shows intent to treat separately | Statute criminalizes trafficking in "a" controlled substance; multiple substances may support multiple charges; Blockburger analysis controls | No double jeopardy; convictions for trafficking heroin and meth both permissible; Grubb to the contrary is overruled |
| Sufficiency / directed verdict for possession | Commonwealth failed to prove Johnson possessed the contraband | Evidence of actual/constructive possession (statements, residence, items under bed) | Evidence sufficient for firearm (bench) and drugs (jury); no reversible error or palpable error preserved |
| Request for expert funds to analyze recording | Additional funds needed to examine alleged editing/contradiction in detective’s testimony | Trial court granted some funds and reasonably denied more; defendant's claim dubious | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying extra expert funding |
| Sentencing — consecutive effect with prior sentence | Consecutive order effectively makes total 30 years (violating statutory caps) | Prior 10-year sentence from a separate case is not part of these sentences; statutes limiting Class B/C apply to current sentences only | No sentencing error; trial court permissibly ordered sentences to run consecutively to prior sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (tests whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Burge, 947 S.W.2d 805 (adopting Blockburger in Kentucky double jeopardy analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Grubb, 862 S.W.2d 883 (earlier Kentucky decision limiting multiple trafficking convictions for same-transaction same-schedule drugs; explicitly overruled here)
- Early v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.3d 729 (interpretation that statute criminalizing trafficking in "a" controlled substance allows separate offenses for each forged/prescribed item)
- Benjamin v. Commonwealth, 266 S.W.3d 775 (standard for indigent defendant expert-funding requests)
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302 (standard of review for suppression rulings: factual findings clearly erroneous; legal application de novo)