State v. Hougardy, 396 S.W.3d 443

Appellant Shawn Hougardy appeals from convictions for attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, resisting a lawful stop, and tampering with physical evidence; the court also found him to be a persistent offender.
On April 1, 2011, Appellant accompanied Smith and Ratliff as they solicited and purchased items to make methamphetamine, providing funding.
Police initiated a high-speed chase when Appellant fled from officers after failing to signal a turn.
Items tied to meth production were found inside the truck and in boxes/ bags discarded during the chase; Appellant later admitted ownership and driving the truck.
Receipts and security videos showed Appellant’s involvement in acquiring materials; officers recovered syringes and other paraphernalia in proximity to Appellant.
The State alleged prior felony convictions, and the trial court held Appellant to be a persistent offender, enhancing sentences for resisting a lawful stop and tampering with evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted manufacture	Hougardy possessed items used to make meth	Items may have been possessed by co-perpetrators, not Hougardy	Sufficient evidence supported conviction for attempt to manufacture
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with physical evidence	Tampering occurred as items were thrown from the vehicle during pursuit	No formal investigation had begun; cannot impair an ongoing proceeding	Conviction upheld; statute does not require an investigation to have begun
Eligibility of persistent offender enhancement	Indictment did not clearly recite § 558.021; enhancement improper	Information and evidence satisfied statutory requirements irrespective of placement in indictment	Persistent offender status properly found; enhancements upheld

State v. Watson, 290 S.W.3d 103 (Mo.App. S.D. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review on acquittal appeal)
State v. Woods, 284 S.W.3d 630 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (evidence viewed in light favorable to State; reasonable doubt standard)
State v. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d 565 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012) (possession defined; joint or sole possession; knowledge shown by direct or circumstantial evidence)
State v. Wurtzberger, 265 S.W.3d 329 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (possession may be sole or joint; constructive possession)
State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. banc 1995) (no requirement that investigation begin before impairment of evidence)
State v. Carson, 898 S.W.2d 555 (Mo.App. W.D. 1995) (prior offender allegations need not be repeated in every count)