State v. Anderson
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1442
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Shane M. Anderson challenges a cocaine possession conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence of knowledge of its presence.
- An anonymous tip prompted police to inspect Room 138 at Hannibal Inn where Anderson and his nephew were present.
- Police found a straw containing a small amount of cocaine, marijuana in grinders/scales, and the room contained other drug paraphernalia.
- Anderson was interviewed, admitted marijuana use, and made statements suggesting ownership of items; officer saw but did not show items to him in room.
- The state proved marijuana and related paraphernalia in the room but offered no direct evidence of Anderson’s possession of cocaine.
- The appellate court reversed the cocaine conviction due to insufficient evidence linking Anderson to the cocaine, affirming the marijuana conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of presence of cocaine | State argues straw and proximity plus statements show knowledge. | Anderson contends there is insufficient link to knowledge of cocaine’s presence. | Knowledge insufficient; cocaine conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (two-prong knowledge and possession test; proves knowledge of presence)
- State v. Tomes, 329 S.W.3d 400 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (constructive possession when in joint control and knowledge inferred from circumstances)
- State v. Gonzalez, 235 S.W.3d 20 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007) (knowledge of presence required; inference from circumstances permissible)
- State v. Young, 427 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. 1968) (possession requires knowledge of substance)
- State v. Cortez-Figueroa, 855 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App. W.D. 1993) (possession and knowledge linked; constructive possession framework)
- State v. Moses, 265 S.W.3d 863 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (totality of circumstances; require incriminating connection to knowledge)
- State v. Woods, 284 S.W.3d 630 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (evidence against knowledge must be more than presence)
- State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (relevance of contemporaneous possession and related items)
- State v. Hall, 680 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App. W.D. 1984) (presence on premises alone insufficient for knowledge)
- Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for sufficiency review of evidence)
- Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. banc 2001) (favorable-view standard in sufficiency analysis)