State v. Ashby
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 520
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ashby was convicted by jury of second-degree burglary, stealing, and resisting arrest.
- Police obtained consent to search Ashby’s van during transport to the station after he invoked a right to counsel.
- A van was searched at the scene and later at headquarters, revealing yellow wiring and PVC piping.
- Defendant argued consent was involuntary because it followed arrest and Miranda invocation.
- The central legal question was whether a unfinished apartment complex qualifies as a “building” under §569.170.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ashby’s post-arrest consent was voluntary. | Ashby freely consented to the van search. | Consent was involuntary due to arrest, custodial situation, and timing. | Consent voluntary; suppression denied. |
| Whether the unfinished apartment complex was a building under §569.170. | Statutory language includes a building; structure meets criteria. | Unfinished status precludes building classification. | Unfinished complex qualifies as a building; burglary upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mathis, 204 S.W.3d 247 (Mo.App.2006) (consent standards; voluntariness analysis)
- State v. Reese, 625 S.W.2d 130 (Mo. banc 1981) (factors for voluntariness in consent cases)
- State v. Boykins, 306 S.W.3d 626 (Mo.App.2010) (standard for suppressions rulings)
- State v. Moore, 303 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2010) (deference to jury; sufficiency review)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of review; evidentiary sufficiency)