State of Missouri v. Edward H. Pennington, Jr., 493 S.W.3d 926

On April 4, 2011, police pursued Edward Pennington after officers observed a rear door of his moving Lexus open and a woman in the backseat screaming for help; the vehicle fled at high speeds and crashed into a tree after a stop stick was deployed.
Pennington fled on foot, resisted arrest, was tasered and taken into custody; during booking a sock yielded a small sealed baggie that field-tested positive for crack cocaine and was later lab-tested as .016 grams of cocaine.
Pennington was charged with felony resisting arrest and possession of a controlled substance and tried by jury; he was convicted and sentenced to concurrent two-year terms.
Prior to trial the court limited expert testimony: Dr. Marilyn Hutchinson could not testify that any diminished capacity was caused by voluntary drug intoxication, but could testify about mental-health diagnoses independent of drug use.
During opening, defense counsel attempted to preview portions of Dr. Hutchinson’s anticipated testimony about Pennington’s mental state; the court sustained State objections to parts of that preview and directed counsel to stick to the expert’s report.
On appeal Pennington argued (1) the court erred by limiting his opening statement and (2) the court erred by admitting the cocaine without an unbroken chain of custody. The court affirmed, finding no prejudicial error and that the State established a sufficient foundation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pennington)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court improperly limited defense opening statement by cutting off anticipated expert testimony	The court prevented counsel from outlining Dr. Hutchinson’s expected testimony linking Pennington’s PTSD-driven fear of prison to his flight, prejudicing ability to present diminished-capacity theory	Limitation was proper where counsel sought to state testimony not in the expert report; opening statements must be limited to provable facts and available testimony	No reversible error — even if limiting statement was erroneous, no prejudice because defense sufficiently outlined diminished-capacity theory and introduced related expert testimony at trial
Whether admission of the cocaine (State’s Exhibit 7) lacked foundation due to a break in the chain of custody	Gap between booking officer’s testimony and Detective Price’s testimony created insufficient chain of custody, rendering lab result inadmissible	Any minor discrepancy goes to weight, not admissibility; no evidence of bad faith or tampering and standard procedures support continuity; State established sufficient foundation	Admission was proper — chain of custody was adequate and any inconsistency affected weight, not admissibility

State v. Gilbert, 103 S.W.3d 743 (Mo. banc 2003) (scope of opening statements is within trial court discretion)
State v. Thompson, 68 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. banc 2002) (opening statements must enable outline of facts supporting defense theory)
State v. Link, 25 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. banc 2000) (chain of custody need not eliminate all possibility of disturbance; absent bad faith court may presume proper custody)
State v. Blurton, 484 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2016) (admissibility decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Lozano v. BNSF Ry. Co., 421 S.W.3d 448 (Mo. banc 2014) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
Goodwin v. State, 191 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2006) (witnesses may not testify to what a defendant was thinking at time of offense)
State v. Reed, 811 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991) (gaps in chain of custody generally affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. Davenport, 924 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (chain of custody required where evidence is not distinguishable)