STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. REGINA J. HILLEMAN, SD36755

On June 12, 2019, police executed a search warrant at Regina Hilleman’s apartment at 120 South Howell Avenue; items consistent with methamphetamine distribution were found in her bedroom and on the porch (including a baggie later testing positive for methamphetamine). A visitor, Destry Shed, had come to trade a microwave for meth.
Officers measured distances from the apartment to West Plains High School: about 954 feet 6 inches to a school maintenance building and about 1,539 feet to the school’s tennis courts — both within the statute’s 2,000-foot protected-zone limit.
Photographs admitted at trial showed the tennis courts, stadium lighting poles, a campus-style building and a football stadium; Sergeant Brauer testified he could see the school stadium, tennis courts, building roof, and flagpole from the apartment.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of distributing a controlled substance in a protected location under § 579.030.1(1) and sentenced to 15 years.
On appeal Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to prove she knew the distribution occurred within 2,000 feet of the high school; the trial court denied a judgment of acquittal and the appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Hilleman knew the distribution took place within 2,000 feet of West Plains High School	Measurements showing portions of the school within 2,000 feet plus photographic and testimonial evidence that school facilities were visible allowed the jury to infer Hilleman’s knowledge	Landmarks shown were not universally recognizable as school property (relying on State v. Calvert); therefore knowledge of proximity was not proven	Affirmed — evidence sufficient: measured distances within 2,000 feet and visibility of school features supported a reasonable inference of Defendant’s knowledge; Calvert was distinguishable

State v. Soliben, 621 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. App. 2021) (appellate view: evidence in light most favorable to verdict; grant State reasonable inferences)
State v. Lehman, 617 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. banc 2021) (circumstantial evidence is sufficient and fact-finder chooses among reasonable inferences)
State v. Hunt, 451 S.W.3d 251 (Mo. banc 2014) (sufficiency review asks whether reasonable juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Lammers, 479 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2016) (appellate courts grant State reasonable inferences when viewing evidence)
State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. banc 2015) (sufficiency reviewed on the merits regardless of trial objection)
State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard that a rational fact-finder may find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Calvert, 290 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. App. 2009) (holding insufficient evidence defendant knew he was within statutory distance of public housing; distinguished here)
State v. Gonzales, 253 S.W.3d 86 (Mo. App. 2008) (visibility of school and playground supported inference defendant knew proximity)
State v. McQuary, 173 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. App. 2005) (defendant’s residence on same street and visible school signage supported knowledge inference)
State v. Crooks, 64 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. App. 2002) (nearby school visibility and observed children supported inference of knowledge)