409 S.W.3d 584
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Solis was convicted of class B felony attempt to manufacture a controlled substance (methamphetamine) under section 195.211, and sentenced to eighteen years.
- Officer Parish, a veteran narcotics officer with a six-county task force, followed Solis and Means after learning Solis purchased pseudoephedrine and Means also purchased it.
- A Walmart stop: Solis bought 120 mg of pseudoephedrine; Solis exited with a small bag, and Means re-entered Walmart after Solis left; Walmart confirmed Means purchased pseudoephedrine too.
- Officers thereafter followed Solis to a storage unit; Solis was the driver and appeared near the storage unit as Means discarded an item into the vehicle.
- Consent to search Solis’s vehicle and the storage unit was given verbally by Solis; officers seized pseudoephedrine, Heet, and various meth precursor items from the vehicle and storage unit.
- Evidence included lye, modified mason jars, tubing, transfer hose, propane tank, matchbooks with striker plates removed, and a blue bag with additional materials; these items are commonly used in meth manufacture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression ruling was correct | Solis alleges no reasonable suspicion and improper consent; jurisdiction issues alleged. | Parish had reasonable suspicion and consent was voluntary; no jurisdiction flaw. | Suppression denial affirmed; search valid. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict for attempted manufacture | State failed to prove possession/constructive possession and substantial step with intent. | Evidence showed Solis’ proximity, purchases, and control over relevant items; sufficient to prove substantial step. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sund, 215 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2007) (defer to trial court on factual findings; de novo on Fourth Amendment law)
- State v. Hawkins, 137 S.W.3d 549 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (reasonable suspicion includes articulable facts; prior involvement permissible factor)
- State v. Grayson, 336 S.W.3d 138 (Mo.banc 2011) (prior encounters admissible factor in reasonable suspicion analysis)
- State v. Mathis, 204 S.W.3d 247 (Mo.App.E.D.2006) (consent must be voluntary; officers need not advise right to refuse)
- State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307 (Mo.banc 2005) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence in appellate review)
- State v. TilIey, 104 S.W.3d 814 (Mo.App.S.D.2003) (substantial step analysis for attempt to manufacture)
- State v. Farris, 125 S.W.3d 382 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (incriminating evidence from possession supports substantial step)
- State v. Mickle, 164 S.W.3d 33 (Mo.App.S.D.2005) (possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Brand, 309 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (unusual purchaser behavior as indicator of illicit activity; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561 (Mo.banc 2008) (reasonable inference standard in sufficiency review)
- State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo.banc 2001) (standard for evaluating witness credibility and evidentiary weight)
- State v. Cannafax, 344 S.W.3d 279 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (fact-finder credibility; reasonable inferences from evidence)
- State v. Ashby, 339 S.W.3d 600 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (considerations in evaluating consent and voluntariness)