State v. Rosa
304 Kan. 429
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Gregory Rosa's Leavenworth County home (he owned the house) and found methamphetamine and an active red "P" meth lab in a bedroom used by co-resident Randall Smith.
- Rosa lived upstairs with Maureen Evans; three other long-term residents lived in the house; Rosa paid utilities and the others did not pay rent.
- Meth evidence included a coffee pot "cook," liquid meth containers, residue under Smith’s bed, and a small bag of crystal residue in Evans’ storage area. No drugs found in common areas or Rosa’s bedroom.
- Multiple witnesses (including Evans, Brice, Heckman, Sigler) testified Rosa used meth and was present when others used it; some said Rosa smelled or saw the cook and was told to remove Smith. Evans expressly testified she obtained meth from Rosa.
- Rosa conceded ownership of the premises and that drugs were on the premises but argued he lacked knowledge/intent to possess them (innocent explanation). He was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and appealed on sufficiency, admission of prior drug-use evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict for possession | State: circumstantial evidence (ownership, control, proximity, witnesses) shows Rosa knowingly possessed meth | Rosa: nonexclusive possession; mere presence/access insufficient without incriminating facts | Held: Evidence sufficient — ownership, control, prior use, contemporaneous access/smell/knowledge permitted inference of knowing possession |
| Admissibility of Rosa's prior drug use (K.S.A. 60‑455) | State: prior use is relevant to disputed material fact (knowledge) and admissible under 60‑455(b) | Rosa: prior-use evidence prejudicial and inadmissible propensity evidence | Held: Admission proper — defendant did not dispute presence of drugs but offered innocent explanation (lack of knowledge), so prior use was relevant to prove knowledge |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument implying harm to neighborhood/children) | State: closing remark was isolated and not intended to inflame; argument focused on control/knowledge | Rosa: statement improperly appealed to emotion and required reversal | Held: Error, if any, was harmless — not gross/flagrant, no ill will, and evidence of knowledge was strong beyond reasonable doubt |
| Standard for proving possession in nonexclusive premises | State: circumstantial inferences (ownership, control, knowledge) can prove possession | Rosa: follows precedent that mere access in nonexclusive premises insufficient without other incriminating circumstances | Held: Reaffirmed that in nonexclusive possession cases courts evaluate totality (prior use, control, proximity, statements); here totality supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815 (discussing standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
- State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697 (circumstantial evidence and inferences may support conviction)
- State v. Anthony, 242 Kan. 493 (mere presence/access in nonexclusive premises insufficient absent other incriminating circumstances)
- State v. Bockert, 257 Kan. 488 (factors to consider when proving knowledge/possession in nonexclusive premises)
- State v. Boggs, 287 Kan. 298 (limits on admitting prior drug-use evidence when defendant disputes facts outright)
- State v. Preston, 294 Kan. 27 (clarifies Boggs: admit prior-use evidence when defendant offers innocent explanation, but not when denying presence)
- State v. Beaver, 41 Kan. App. 2d 124 (Court of Appeals synthesis of incriminating circumstances for nonexclusive possession cases)
- State v. Crawford, 300 Kan. 740 (harmless-error framework for prosecutorial misconduct review)