State v. Tomes
329 S.W.3d 400
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Tomes was charged in November 2007 with possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine).
- Evidence at trial showed methamphetamine residue in an open manicure case on Tomes's dresser in a bedroom shared with Kevin Tomes; other drugs were found in the house.
- A deputy testified he did not investigate possession or take fingerprints because he was there to arrest for assault, and he acknowledged probable cause could exist against Kevin or Dinwiddle if they lived in or were in the room.
- Kevin Tomes testified that he and Tomes were reconciling and shared the bedroom; Dinwiddle had entered the house and was in the bedroom just before the assault, and Tomes described Dinwiddle as acting hallucinogenic/altered.
- The State presented no evidence linking the manicure case or methamphetamine to Tomes personally, and she did not make incriminating admissions; marijuana was found throughout the house, but that did not establish Tomes's knowledge or control of methamphetamine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | Tomes | Tomes | Evidence insufficient; reversible judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Power, 281 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (elements of possession and awareness)
- State v. Metcalf, 182 S.W.3d 272 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006) (constructive possession; unequivocal evidence required)
- State v. Booth, 11 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) (constructive possession standards in shared premises)
- State v. Waller, 163 S.W.3d 593 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (inference sufficiency in circumstantial cases)
- State v. Beggs, 186 S.W.3d 306 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (consideration of totality of circumstances)
- State v. Bacon, 156 S.W.3d 372 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (separate evaluation of related drugs; marijuana evidence was not determinative)
- State v. Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)