State of Missouri v. Randell Davis
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 30, 2008, A.S. (age 15) hid in the basement of 4942 Hurley Street, where defendant Randell Davis (age 18) and his relative Kim Latcher were present; A.S. alleges Davis forcibly raped her on a futon in the basement.
- A.S. reported the rape to Ms. Latcher, who called police; officers were admitted to the home by Ms. Latcher, who told them she lived there and escorted them to the basement.
- Officers observed a condom in plain view inside a trash bag at the foot of the futon and a comforter on the bed; evidence technician photographed and seized the items without moving them.
- DNA testing matched male DNA on the condom to Davis and also detected A.S.’s DNA; Davis admitted having sex with A.S. but claimed it was consensual.
- Davis moved to suppress the physical evidence arguing a Fourth Amendment violation (no consent, no exigency, not plain view); following a bench trial he was convicted of forcible rape and sentenced to 18 years.
- On appeal Davis raised (1) error in denying the suppression motion and (2) insufficiency of the evidence given alleged inconsistencies in A.S.’s statements; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment | Police had valid consent to enter from a resident (Ms. Latcher) and the condom/comforter were in plain view with apparent evidentiary value | No valid consent (Latcher did not reside there), no exigency, and the items were not subject to plain view seizure | Court: Entry reasonable because officer reasonably believed Latcher had common authority; plain view applied so seizure lawful; suppression denied |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support forcible rape conviction | A.S.’s testimony, physical evidence (condom) and DNA support a finding of forcible compulsion beyond a reasonable doubt | A.S.’s statements to responders conflicted with trial testimony; those inconsistencies undermine sufficiency | Court: Viewing totality and deferring to factfinder on credibility, evidence sufficed to convict; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (warrantless entry lawful if officers reasonably believe third party has common authority to consent)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (plain view seizure requires incriminating character to be immediately apparent)
- State v. Vandevere, 175 S.W.3d 107 (totality-of-circumstances test for forcible compulsion and reasonable resistance)
- State v. Ivy, 455 S.W.3d 13 (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- State v. Brown, 18 S.W.3d 482 (consent/authority to permit entry supports warrantless entry)