State of Missouri v. Jerry Lee Cole, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 214

In August 2013 an informant told police Cole was selling marijuana from his home and receiving weekly shipments.
Sergeant Michael Cheek obtained and executed a nighttime search warrant of Cole’s home.
Officers found eight vacuum‑style individually packaged bags (~1/4 oz each), another bag (~1/8 oz), empty plastic bags, a digital scale, and residue in a dresser drawer in Cole’s bedroom; no smoking paraphernalia was found.
Cole was Mirandized, admitted unemployment and that he had been selling marijuana for about a year, and declined further statement at the station.
At trial Sergeant Cheek testified to the informant’s detailed statements (amounts, location, photo), and the prosecutor relied on that corroboration in closing; no limiting instruction was given.
Jury convicted Cole of possession with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia; Cole appealed arguing improper admission of informant hearsay and Confrontation Clause error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of informant’s out‑of‑court statements	State: statements were offered not for truth but to explain basis for the search warrant (background/continuity)	Cole: statements were hearsay and went beyond necessary background, violating hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause	Court: testimony exceeded necessary background and was inadmissible hearsay; Confrontation Clause implicated (trial court erred)
Prejudice from Confrontation Clause violation	Cole: violation is presumptively prejudicial and requires reversal	State: error was harmless because overwhelming independent evidence of guilt made the informant testimony cumulative	Court: error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; admission not outcome‑determinative given Cole’s admissions and physical evidence (overwhelming evidence)

State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial court discretion on evidence admission)
State v. Douglas, 131 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (out‑of‑court statements not offered for truth are not hearsay)
State v. Garrett, 139 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004) (background/continuity exception for officer testimony about informant tips)
State v. Dunn, 817 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. banc 1991) (background explanation for police conduct)
State v. Shigemura, 680 S.W.2d 256 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) (officer should avoid revealing incriminating details of informant tips)
State v. Robinson, 111 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (jury reliance on informant statements can show prejudice)
State v. Boykins, 477 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (narration of investigation may implicate Confrontation Clause)
State v. Justus, 205 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. banc 2006) (harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard for Confrontation Clause violations)
State v. Howard, 913 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (hearsay generally inadmissible unless an exception applies)