State v. Watson, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1497

Defendant Watson appealing convictions for possession with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Officers observed unusual Cadillac; suspect drug transaction; Defendant dropped a bag containing items used in drug trade.
Bag contents included a coffee grinder and ~100 empty gelatin capsules; Defendant fled in gangway during pursuit.
During arrest, officer recovered 1.68 g heroin in a Dormin bottle and other paraphernalia; Cadillac occupants were searched with no contraband found.
Jury convicted on both counts; trial court sentenced as prior/persistent offender to 13 years and 1 year concurrent terms.
Appeal challenges evidentiary rulings and a sentencing-related testimony issue, with the trial court’s rulings affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
admissibility of gun testimony at pursuit	Watson argues the gun testimony was improper uncharged-crime evidence.	Watson contends it inflamed the jury and was prejudicial.	No abuse; testimony admissible to show surrounding circumstances.
admissibility of occupants’ statements about buying drugs	Statements were necessary to explain officers’ actions.	Statements were hearsay and improperly opened the door.	Not an abuse; statements admissible to explain police conduct with limiting instructions.
plain error in sentencing testimony	Victim-impact testimony permissible for community impact.	Statute confines victim testimony to direct victims.	No plain error; testimony permissible; no reliance in sentencing.

State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (evidentiary discretion standard for admission of evidence)
State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 2011) (uncharged acts admissible for motive/intent and complete picture)
State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. banc 1993) (relevant/prop value outweighs prejudicial effect)
State v. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d 565 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (complete picture admissibility of surrounding circumstances)
State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (contemporaneous possession evidence relevant to knowledge/intent)
State v. Allison, 326 S.W.3d 81 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (opening door theory for admissibility of evidence)
State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012) (juror instructed on purpose of testimony; limits respected)
State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. banc 2003) (confrontation and reliability considerations in hearsay)
State v. Murray, 744 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. banc 1988) (hearsay exceptions for explaining police conduct)
State v. Lingar, 726 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc 1987) (door-opening doctrine allowing further evidence)
State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. banc 1994) (connection between admissibility of initial evidence and later relevance)
State v. Odom, 353 S.W.2d 708 (Mo. banc 1962) (door-opening and admissibility of related evidence)