327 S.W.3d 557
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- McLarty charged by amended information with class B felony attempted manufacture of methamphetamine; jury found him guilty; case involves accomplice Barbre and shared conduct toward meth manufacture; items found in Stratus include pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, coffee grinder, salt, hydrogen peroxide, and drug paraphernalia; receipts show purchases of pseudoephedrine; methamphetamine residue found; state theory: defendant aided Barbre in accumulating ingredients for meth manufacture.
- Evidence showed both Barbre and McLarty purchased pseudoephedrine within 24 hours, violating § 195.417; various items commonly used in Shake-and-Bake method recovered; expert testimony linked items to meth manufacture; defense motion for acquittal denied.
- State presented testimony that pseudoephedrine is the key ingredient and that “ingredients getters” gather items; crime lab and officer testimony connected items to meth production; defendant was in close proximity to items in the car.
- Court applied standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases and held there was substantial evidence of a substantial step and intent to manufacture methamphetamine, including accomplice liability.
- Trial included reflection on the admissibility of evidence (glass pipe, marijuana) and proposed instructions on use of related conduct evidence; the court addressed plain error standards for challenges not raised at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to manufacture meth | State argues sufficient evidence of substantial step and intent | McLarty contends no proof he or Barbre possessed/compiled items | Evidence supported substantial step and intent; accomplice liability applicable |
| Admission of glass pipe evidence | Evidence linked to intent to manufacture meth | Prejudicial and not probative | Admissible; if error, harmless error not outcome-determinative |
| Plain error for pipe evidence | No plain error; evidence cumulative | Plain error | No plain error; evidence cumulative; point denied |
| Instruction No. 9 (prior related crimes evidence) | Permissible to explain use of prior related crimes to show intent | Instruction improper unless preserved; plain error | Properly given; not plain error |
| Instruction No. 5 (accomplice liability) | Defense claimed ‘compile’ misstates possession; evidence shows joint action | Word choice should reflect possession/complicity | No plain error; instruction proper and supported by accomplice liability theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 14 S.W.3d 121 (Mo.App.2000) (standard for substantial step and intent in attempt cases)
- Tilley v. State, 202 S.W.3d 726 (Mo.App.2006) (definition of substantial step; corroboration of intent)
- Rollett v. State, 80 S.W.3d 514 (Mo.App.2002) (accomplice liability and inferencing acts toward manufacturing)
- Wurtzberger v. State, 40 S.W.3d 893 (Mo.banc 2001) (equally guilty for concerted action; aiding another to commit offense)
- Dowell v. State, 25 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App.2000) (admissibility of related evidence to prove intent)
- Yahne v. State, 943 S.W.2d 741 (Mo.App.1997) (admissibility of drug paraphernalia evidence to show intent)
- Steward v. State, 844 S.W.2d 31 (Mo.App.1992) (admissibility of drug paraphernalia to prove intent in related context)
- Franks v. State, 228 S.W.3d 607 (Mo.App.2007) (harmless error when prior evidence is cumulative)