345 S.W.3d 385
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Graham was convicted by jury of selling forty diazepam pills to an undercover officer in Rolla, Missouri.
- The sale occurred June 23, 2008; an informant arranged the sale; Officer Walker recorded the sale; diazepam is a Schedule IV drug.
- Graham was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
- Exhibits A and B were certified copies of the informant’s felony charges pending at the time of the sale.
- The trial court excluded Exhibits A and B over defense objections; the State objected on grounds the informant was not a witness.
- Graham argued the exhibits were relevant to entrapment by showing the informant’s motive to induce the sale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of exhibits A and B | Graham argues exhibits show informant’s motive and are relevant. | Graham contends exhibits are relevant to entrapment and not cumulative. | Exhibits logically relevant but legally cumulated; court did not err. |
| Legal relevance of motive evidence | Exhibits prove informant’s motive to solicit to gain leniency. | Exhibits are cumulative to other evidence of informant’s role. | Exhibits were cumulated; not legally necessary. |
| Harmlessness of exclusion | Exclusion could prejudice, given entrapment issues. | Recordings and other evidence show Appellant ready to sell; exclusion harmless. | Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mason, 95 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (evidence must be legally relevant and not overly cumulative)
- State v. Barriner, 111 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. Banc. 2003) (trial court error in excluding admissible evidence; standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hopper, 315 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (harmlessness presumption when exclusion is claimed; must show prejudicial error beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Sanders, 126 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for evidentiary error)
- State v. Mitchell, 897 S.W.2d 187 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995) (entrapment prerequisites; solicitation by informant is a factor)
- State v. Joiner, 823 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (use of witness’s pending charges to show bias or motivation)
- Hadlock v. Dir. of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. Banc. 1993) (admissibility of certified records under statutory/logical relevance)