State of Missouri v. Sherod Phillips, Movant/Appellant.
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1238
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Missouri police received a citizen tip alleging narcotics selling at a St. Louis residence.
- Police surveilled the residence and observed Phillips conduct hand-to-hand narcotics transactions from the residence.
- Area records and patrols corroborated that Phillips sold narcotics from the address; a video of a transaction was shown at trial.
- Police obtained a search warrant based on surveillance and tip corroboration; the warrant was executed at Phillips’s residence.
- In the upstairs bedroom, officers found heroin, paraphernalia, and bags; on the back porch, hundreds of empty heroin capsules; Phillips’s mail and personal items were found in the bedroom; Phillips’s uncle lived with him in the same bedroom.
- A detective testified the bedroom heroin appeared for personal use, not sale, and Phillips’s grandmother testified her son (Phillips’s uncle) lived with him and had heroin problems; no one testified that items upstairs belonged to the uncle.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: sufficient evidence to establish constructive possession | Phillips: no sufficient link to possession | Sufficient evidence |
| Admission of uncharged drug transactions | State: uncharged sales relevant and probative of possession | Phillips: prejudicial and irrelevant | Admissible; not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo.banc 2010) (standard for sufficiency review in Missouri)
- State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo.banc 2001) (reasonable inferences favored for verdicts)
- State v. Power, 281 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009) (same analysis for possession of paraphernalia and substances)
- State v. McCall, 412 S.W.3d 370 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013) (constructive possession must be shown when no actual possession)
- State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 (Mo.banc 2008) (evidence of uncharged crimes may be admissible under exceptions)
- State v. Adams, 443 S.W.3d 50 (Mo.App.E.D. 2014) (evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted as related to charged offense)
- State v. Watson, 391 S.W.3d 18 (Mo.App.E.D. 2012) (possession cases allow contemporaneous uncharged misconduct evidence)
- State v. Flenoid, 838 S.W.2d 462 (Mo.App.E.D. 1992) (sales evidence may be relevant to prove possession; complete picture)
- State v. Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24 (Mo.banc 2006) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Roggenbuck, 387 S.W.3d 376 (Mo.banc 2012) (abuse of discretion standard in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo.banc 2006) (prejudice standard in evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Parker, 988 S.W.2d 93 (Mo.App.S.D. 1999) (uncharged drug sales evidence admissible in some possession cases)
- State v. Owen, 753 S.W.2d 114 (Mo.App.S.D. 1988) (similar treatment of uncharged drug sales)