State v. Morgan
366 S.W.3d 565
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Morgan convicted of attempt to steal anhydrous ammonia based on events in rural Marion County, Dec 11, 2010.
- Two Marion County deputies observed suspicious driving near Bleigh and Graupman Construction sites where anhydrous ammonia tanks were located.
- Defendant and two passengers were stopped; odor of ether detected; fire extinguisher and other tools found in car and trunk.
- HCL generator and other items associated with methamphetamine production were found in the trunk; defendant admitted prior drug use.
- State charged Morgan as a prior and persistent offender; jury found him guilty of the charged offense.
- Defendant appeals asserting sufficiency of evidence and various evidentiary and stop-related errors; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession and substantial step | Morgan possessed equipment to steal ammonia and took substantial steps | Insufficient evidence of possession and no substantial step | Sufficient evidence supports possession and substantial step |
| Mistrial for testimony about defendant's past | Testimony of past drug use relevant to credibility | Violates rule against uncharged misconduct | No plain-error warranting mistrial; no manifest injustice |
| Admission of text messages from cell phone | Messages foundationed; admissible | Lacked foundation; best-evidence/hearsay issues | Court's ruling sustained; no error requiring reversal |
| Reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Totality of circumstances supported a Terry stop | Stop lacked articulable facts of crime | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion; admissible evidence?></{ |
Key Cases Cited
- Withrow v. State, 8 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. banc 1999) (substantial-step inquiry and standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Kusgen v. State, 178 S.W.3d 595 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (substantial-step indicators in ammonia theft cases)
- West v. State, 21 S.W.3d 59 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (standard for substantial-step analysis)
- Mickle v. State, 164 S.W.3d 33 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (possession analysis in joint-control scenarios)
- Meanor v. State, 863 S.W.2d 884 (Mo. banc 1993) (evidence of knowledge and control in shared-vehicle contexts)
- Goff v. State, 129 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. banc 2004) (reasonable-suspicion framework for stops in high-crime areas)
- Wardlow v. United States, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight as a factor in establishing suspicion)
- Pike v. State, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. banc 2005) (treats late-hour presence near crime scene as relevant context)