State v. Gilmore, 537 S.W.3d 342

In Oct. 2014 police served a warrant at a trailer leased by Foley and Mitchell; Vicki Gilmore (Foley’s girlfriend) was present and consented to searches of her person, purse, vehicle, and phone.
Officers found a text on Gilmore’s phone about a “20 bag”; Gilmore admitted marijuana use and sales at the trailer but denied any methamphetamine was present.
After obtaining a search warrant, officers recovered a small plastic bag containing .275 grams of methamphetamine tucked on the third shelf of a bathroom medicine cabinet, plus drug paraphernalia elsewhere in the trailer.
The detective testified the meth bag was not visible on entering the bathroom, the pipe was hidden in a stereo, no female clothing or mail in Gilmore’s name were found, and Gilmore had few personal items in the trailer.
Gilmore was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, sentenced (execution suspended) to seven years with five years probation, and appealed arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Gilmore knowingly possessed methamphetamine	State argued presence in trailer, other drug paraphernalia, and an eyelash curler in the same cabinet permitted a reasonable inference Gilmore knew of and exercised control over the meth	Gilmore argued no evidence she knew the meth existed, lived in the trailer, accessed the bathroom, or had dominion/control over the hidden bag; proximity alone is insufficient	Reversed — insufficient evidence that Gilmore knew of the meth; judgment of acquittal entered

State v. Ess, 453 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. banc 2015) (sufficiency-review standards and acceptance of evidence supporting verdict)
State v. Coleman, 463 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. banc 2015) (reasonable-finder standard for sufficiency)
State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. banc 2001) (court will not supply missing evidence or rely on speculative inferences)
State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. banc 2016) (possession requires conscious, intentional possession plus actual or constructive control)
State v. Clark, 490 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. banc 2016) (knowledge of presence is a condition precedent to possession; proximity alone insufficient)
State v. Withrow, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999) (defendant exiting room where drugs found did not prove knowledge/possession)
State v. Burns, 457 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. 1970) (knowledge as prerequisite to possession)
State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. banc 1997) (act plus guilty mind required for criminal offense)
State v. Richardson, 296 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. App. 2009) (other drugs/paraphernalia may be relevant but do not automatically establish knowledge)