State of Missouri v. Carlton Porter
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 644
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Porter was convicted in the City of St. Louis Circuit Court after a jury trial on trafficking drugs in the second degree, possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to use; he was charged as a prior and persistent offender.
- Surveillance on Feb. 22, 2012 showed Porter dip More-brand cigarettes into a bottle containing PCP and inhale, then engage in a hand-to-hand exchange with a vehicle’s passenger.
- Approximately 45 minutes later Porter again retrieved a More cigarette, dipped it in PCP, inhaled, and handed the cigarette to a second vehicle’s passenger for money.
- Officers recovered More cigarettes and a bottle with PCP from a hole under a sidewalk; a criminalist testified the bottle contained 31.43 grams of liquid PCP.
- The State had Counts I–V charging PCP trafficking, possession with intent to distribute, and paraphernalia with intent to use; the trial court denied a pretrial double jeopardy motion and, after trial, Porter was convicted on three counts and sentenced to concurrent terms (12 years, 12 years, and 1 year).
- On appeal, Porter argues (1) the court erred in denying judgment of acquittal on possession of paraphernalia with intent to use, and (2) the convictions raise a double jeopardy violation; the Court affirms.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence that Porter possessed drug paraphernalia with intent to use to ingest PCP? | Porter (State) argues evidence shows intent to use paraphernalia. | Porter contends there is no proof he intended to use the cigarettes to ingest PCP. | No error; sufficiency supports intent to use. |
| Do the trafficking and possession with intent to deliver convictions violate double jeopardy? | State argues offenses have distinct elements; no punitive duplication. | Porter asserts cumulative punishments for same conduct. | No double jeopardy; separate elements and statutory structure support convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wood, 301 S.W.3d 578 (Mo.App.S.D. 2010) (circumstantial proof of intent)
- State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. banc 2014) (double jeopardy and multiple punishments analysis)
- State v. McTush, 827 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. banc 1992) (cumulative punishments; framework for analysis)
- State v. Garnett, 298 S.W.3d 919 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009) (when statutes do not clearly express cumulative punishment intent)
- State v. Hill, 970 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998) (distinct elements; not a lesser-included/offense)
- State v. Polson, 145 S.W.3d 881 (Mo.App.W.D. 2004) (inapposite to 556.041(1) lesser-included analysis)
- State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999) (trafficking not a specific instance of possession with intent to distribute)