413 S.W.3d 670
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- On July 1, 2010, narcotics investigator BA Pratt applied for a search warrant to search Donald Ray Spradling’s residence; the application and affidavit were dated July 1, 2010.
- The issued search warrant mistakenly showed a June 1, 2010 date (handwritten typo); Pratt testified the judge signed the warrant on July 1, 2010.
- Officers executed the search on July 3, 2010 and seized drugs; Pratt realized the warrant’s date error only after entry and reading the warrant aloud.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the search was invalid because the warrant on its face was not executed within ten days of issuance as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.276.
- The trial court credited Pratt’s testimony that the application and issuance occurred July 1 and found the search occurred within ten days; the court overruled suppression and admitted the evidence.
- Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and two possession counts; convictions affirmed, but case remanded to amend the written judgment to reflect sentencing as a prior drug offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search warrant was invalid because it was not executed within ten days of issuance under § 542.276 | State: burden to prove suppression denial; evidence (application, affidavit, witness testimony) shows application/issuance July 1 and search July 3 | Spradling: face of the warrant shows June 1; search therefore occurred beyond ten days and the warrant is invalid; extrinsic evidence should not rebut the warrant’s four corners | Court: Held warrant valid. Statute measures ten-day period from date of application; application and affidavit dated July 1; testimony that warrant issued July 1 and search July 3 was credited. Suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goff, 129 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. banc 2004) (appellate review of suppression: consider suppression hearing and trial evidence)
- State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (defer to trial court factual findings on suppression)
- State v. Hamilton, 328 S.W.3d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Page, 309 S.W.3d 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court may correct written judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect sentencing findings)
- State v. Brown, 382 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (probable cause for warrant is determined from application and supporting affidavits)
- State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (probable cause determined from four corners of application and affidavits)
- State v. Miller, 815 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (court may consider extrinsic evidence about issuance timing when validity under statutory timing is at issue)
- State v. Feemster, 628 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (consideration of outside evidence when warrant documents contain errors)