State v. Munoz
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1000
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Munoz was convicted of distribution of a controlled substance after a bench trial in Randolph County, Missouri.
- Kilgore, an acquaintance/friend with Munoz, arranged and discussed the drug transaction with Munoz via texts and calls.
- Kilgore contacted Detective Calvert and participated in a controlled purchase, providing Munoz as the supplier.
- Detective Calvert provided Kilgore with funds, conducted surveillance, and recovered methamphetamine and recording devices after the transaction.
- Munoz admitted participation in the March 5, 2009 transaction but claimed entrapment by Kilgore.
- Munoz argued the evidence failed to prove lack of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court denied his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports denial of entrapment. | Munoz argues entrapment due to inducement by Kilgore. | State argues no inducement and Munoz had predisposition. | Sufficient evidence to reject entrapment; no entrapment established. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 904 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (two-part entrapment test; inducement and predisposition)
- State v. Willis, 662 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. banc 1983) (entrapment framework and burden shifting)
- State v. Johnson, 728 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. App. S.D. 1987) (propensity evidence defeats entrapment defense)
- State v. Adams, 839 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (prior drug activity undermines entrapment claim)
- State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1992) (waiver rule for judgments of acquittal after defense case)
- State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. banc 1998) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Vandevere, 175 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. banc 2005) (appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)