State v. McCall
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 991
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- McCall appeals his convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, arguing insufficient evidence supports possession and the verdicts.
- Officers found extensive meth precursor items, drug paraphernalia, and methamphetamine residues in the master bedroom and bathroom, within areas Defendant and his girlfriend occupied.
- Defendant admitted the residence at 2020 Santa Rosa was his primary address; mail and prescription bottles in the master bedroom supported his access and control over the premises.
- Items tying Defendant to possible drug manufacture included items in the master bedroom and bathroom (bottles, lye, gas generator, pill grinder with residue, butane torch, syringes, micro-baggies) and residues testing positive for methamphetamine.
- Additional meth-related items were found in the washroom, including cold packs, lithium battery components, and used coffee filters testing positive for methamphetamine, all within common areas.
- Trial resulted in judgments of conviction for all three charges, with concurrent sentences of fifteen years for each count, heightened by prior-offender status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supports constructive possession of a controlled substance | State argues there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession. | McCall argues no sufficient evidence to show possession. | Yes; sufficient circumstantial evidence showed constructive possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tomes, 329 S.W.3d 400 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (requirements for constructive possession and inference-based proof)
- State v. Metcalf, 182 S.W.3d 272 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (premises must be shown as the locus of control to prove possession)
- State v. Wurtzberger, 265 S.W.3d 329 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (factors supporting inference of possession in jointly-occupied premises)
- State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.1982) (mere presence not enough without exclusive or joint control)
- State v. Moses, 265 S.W.3d 863 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (distinguishes cases where defendant’s items linked to drugs from Moses absence of such linkage)
- State v. Garrett, 765 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.App. E.D.1988) (access to common areas supports possession inference)
- State v. Buford, 907 S.W.2d 316 (Mo.App. E.D.1995) (access and control over jointly leased premises supports possession)
- State v. Keller, 870 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.App. W.D.1994) (access and control over drugs found in jointly occupied space)
- State v. Anderson, 386 S.W.3d 186 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (standard for sufficiency review of evidence)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)