State v. Roggenbuck, 387 S.W.3d 376

Detective obtained a search warrant for Roggenbuck's residence and computer based on an informant's claim of sexual abuse by Roggenbuck and presence of child pornography.
Warrant application described alleged abuse, Roggenbuck's residence setup, and alcohol kept to coax behavior with boys; psychologist observed a large amount of alcohol and a massager at the home.
Forensic analysis recovered five different child-pornography images saved in a My Pictures folder under a user account named 'Robin,' with a Roggenbuck photo also present.
Roggenbuck was convicted by a jury of five counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to five consecutive seven-year terms.
Roggenbuck moved to suppress the evidence, challenged double jeopardy, and challenged admission of resumes as hearsay related to the computer evidence.
The trial court denied suppression and Roggenbuck’s other challenges; on appeal, the court affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for search warrant	Roggenbuck argues the affidavit failed to show probable cause.	Roggenbuck contends the magistrate erred in relying on improper or insufficient facts.	Probable cause supported the warrant; court did not err in denying suppression.
Double jeopardy and unit of prosecution	Five convictions violate double jeopardy as a single possession of multiple images.	Counts were separate offenses because images were acquired at different times; jury need not find timing.	No double jeopardy violation; each time-separated possession constituted a separate offense.
Admission of resumes as hearsay	Resumes and related computer evidence corroborate possession by linking access and control.	Resume evidence is hearsay and prejudicial to guilt.	Resumes were not hearsay and admissible to show access and control; no abuse of discretion.

State v. Neher, 213 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. banc 2007) (probable cause standard and deference to issuing magistrate)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (probable cause requires practical, common-sense assessment)
State v. Berry, 801 S.W.2d 64 (Mo. banc 1990) (great deference to initial probable cause ruling)
State v. Norman, 133 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. App. 2004) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. banc 2012) (plain error review for unpreserved double jeopardy claims; unit of prosecution analysis)
State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2006) (unit-of-prosecution considerations for multiple offenses)
Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. banc 2007) (constructive possession and control over premises)
State v. Warren, 304 S.W.3d 796 (Mo. App. 2010) (evidence of access and control in joint-occupancy settings)
State v. Taylor, 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. banc 2007) (elements of offense and jury trial requirements)