326 S.W.3d 865
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Connell was pulled over on December 3, 2008; officers suspected a warrant and a lane-change violation, Connell was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car while warrant status was checked; a K-9 unit alerted on the truck and marijuana cigarettes were found on the driver's seat; a plastic bag of marijuana was later found in the fuse box and Connell was arrested for possession of a controlled substance; Connell moved to suppress the evidence on June 11, 2009 citing Arizona v. Gant, and the motion was denied prior to trial; after multiple overrules of the motion and a renewed motion denied in March 2010, the case proceeded to a bench trial on April 15, 2010; the State admitted marijuana evidence at trial, Connell offered no defense, and after deliberation the court issued a written judgment sustaining the suppression motion but proceeded to a post-trial interlocutory appeal by the State; the State’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed as double jeopardy prevented appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory appeal jurisdiction under §547.200. | State argues the suppression order is interlocutory and appealable. | Connell argues the order is essentially a final acquittal, not an interlocutory ruling. | The appeal is dismissed for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction; the judgment effectively acquitted Connell. |
| Double jeopardy precludes review of the suppression ruling. | State contends it may review the suppression issue. | Connell argues jeopardy barred appellate review. | Jeopardy attaches after the presentation of evidence; the court held the State’s interlocutory appeal barred by double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Coca-Cola Co. v. Nixon, 249 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. banc 2008) (state’s right to appeal limited by double jeopardy concerns when judgment of acquittal is rendered)
- State v. Shaon, 145 S.W.3d 499 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (interlocutory suppression appeal analyzed in context of bench trial)
- State v. Seuferling, 238 S.W.3d 217 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (precedent on when suppression rulings are reviewable post-trial)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (double jeopardy implications after acquittal)
- State v. Vaida, 510 N.W.2d 389 (Neb. App. 1993) (second trial barred by double jeopardy after acquittal)