State of Missouri v. Luis Zetina-Torres, 2016 Mo. LEXIS 42

Background

On July 16, 2010 Sgt. McGinnis, conducting a "ruse" drug checkpoint on I‑70, followed and stopped a Nissan truck that had exited early on a known drug corridor; Luis Zetina‑Torres (driver) and Roberto Maldonado (passenger) were inside.
Officer detected masking‑agent odor, observed a single key in ignition, and noted inconsistent statements about destination, truck ownership, and relationship between the men.
Appellant consented to a search; officers found 438.74 grams of wet methamphetamine concealed behind a bed‑liner in the truck bed.
Physical evidence tied Appellant to the truck (fingerprint match to vehicle registrant name, documents, bank/MoneyGram cards, GPS and phone data showing Kansas City/Sedalia addresses).
Appellant was retried (after appellate remand for discovery issues) on an accomplice‑liability theory and convicted of second‑degree trafficking; he appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence and the jury instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Zetina‑Torres)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession/knowledge of drugs	Circumstantial evidence (quantity/value of drugs, masking odor, ownership/operation of truck, false statements, nervousness, proximity of personal items, GPS/phone links) supports inference Appellant had knowledge and constructive possession	Mere ownership/presence in vehicle and consent to search insufficient; no direct evidence he knew about drugs; lack of commingling or drugs in plain view	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational juror could infer Appellant had knowledge and constructive possession under totality of circumstances
Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability (aiding/acting together)	Evidence that Appellant provided and drove vehicle, followed passenger’s route suggestions, exited before ruse checkpoint, and lied to officers supports that he acted together with or aided Maldonado	Insufficient proof Appellant aided or acted with Maldonado; vacatur of Maldonado’s conviction shows weak evidence against both	Affirmed — evidence supported submission of accomplice‑liability theory; vacatur of co‑defendant conviction not a defense under § 562.046(1)
Instructional error — submission of verdict director including aiding/acting together element	Instruction accurately stated law and was supported by evidence; no prejudice	Instruction misled/confused jury because alleged aiding/acting together was disputed and co‑defendant’s conviction was vacated	No plain error — instruction was legally proper and supported by the evidence; no manifest injustice shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2008) (evidence‑viewing rules on appeal)
State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2011) (sufficiency review limits)
State v. Nash, 339 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2011) (reversal standard for instructional error and prejudice)
State v. Stover, 388 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. banc 2012) (factors for inferring constructive possession)
State v. Fuente, 871 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1994) (circumstantial proof of possession/knowledge)
State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (constructive possession requires access/control of premises)
State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (scope of accomplice liability)
State v. Wurtzberger, 40 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. banc 2001) (affirmative participation sufficient for conviction as accomplice)
State v. Clay, 975 S.W.2d 121 (Mo. banc 1998) (evidence supporting accomplice liability)
State v. Cella, 32 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. banc 2000) (common intent and equal guilt)
State v. Cooper, 215 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. banc 2007) (requirements for verdict‑directing instruction)
State v. Doolittle, 896 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. banc 1995) (elements in verdict director requirement)