539 S.W.3d 57
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Early morning traffic stop after Officer Locher observed unusual driving (signaling a nonexistent right turn), a high-speed flight for ~1 mile, running a stop sign, and a slow right turn before stopping.
- Officer Locher observed signs of impairment: glossy/bloodshot eyes, flushed complexion, overwhelming odor of alcohol and faint marijuana odor; defendant gave a blank/confused stare.
- Officer Locher handcuffed the defendant, placed him in the squad car, and searched the vehicle, finding a backpack on the front passenger seat that contained marijuana and drug paraphernalia; defendant admitted ownership of the backpack.
- Defendant failed multiple field sobriety tests and refused a breathalyzer; DPS records showed his license was revoked.
- Trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the vehicle search, quashed a subpoena seeking Officer Locher’s personnel/disciplinary files, sustained an objection to questioning about the officer’s termination, and the jury convicted on DWI, possession of <35g marijuana, paraphernalia, and driving while revoked.
- At sentencing the court referenced defendant’s prior convictions and testimony at trial; defendant argued he was penalized for going to trial, but the court imposed 2.5 years’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Mackey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the warrantless search of the vehicle lawful under the automobile exception? | Officer had probable cause from driving behavior, signs of intoxication, and odors to search the vehicle without a warrant. | Search violated Fourth Amendment; no exception justified admission of items from backpack. | Court: Automobile exception applied; probable cause existed, so search lawful. |
| 2. Was evidence sufficient for DWI conviction? | Observations of erratic driving, signs of intoxication, failed SFSTs, and refusal to blow support conviction. | State failed to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. | Court: Totality of evidence sufficient to sustain DWI conviction. |
| 3. Was evidence sufficient for possession (marijuana and paraphernalia)? | Backpack on passenger seat, defendant admitted ownership, odor of marijuana—supports actual possession and knowledge. | Defendant claimed he did not know items were in the bag. | Court: Evidence supported actual possession and knowledge; convictions sustained. |
| 4. Did trial court abuse discretion by quashing subpoena for officer’s personnel/disciplinary files? | No evidence those records contained material/impeaching information; request speculative. | Files contained impeachment material and citizen complaints relevant to credibility. | Court: Quash proper; defendant failed to show materiality beyond speculation. |
| 5. Was it error to prohibit cross-examining officer about termination? | Termination was irrelevant/collateral and had low probative value; cross remained available on other matters. | Termination was impeachment material bearing on credibility. | Court: Exclusion not abuse; issue collateral without showing relevance to this incident. |
| 6. Did sentencing improperly penalize defendant for exercising right to trial? | Court considered defendant’s prior record and testimony; any trial-related comments followed defendant’s own remarks and were not basis for enhancement. | Sentencing comments show punishment for choosing trial, violating Sixth Amendment. | Court: No plain error; sentence based on permissible factors (record, testimony), not improper trial-penalty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (probable cause reviewed using common-sense, objective approach)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor must disclose impeachment/favorable evidence)
- State v. Hampton, 959 S.W.2d 444 (Mo. banc) (automobile exigency and probable cause principles)
- State v. Burkhardt, 795 S.W.2d 399 (Mo. banc) (probable cause to search automobile supports container searches)
- State v. Edwards, 280 S.W.3d 184 (Mo. App. E.D.) (DWI may be proven by officer observations and SFST performance)
- State v. White, 518 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. App. E.D.) (sentencing may not be enhanced as punishment for exercising right to trial)