State v. Zetina-Torres
400 S.W.3d 343
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Zetina-Torres was charged with trafficking in the first degree and convicted by the jury of the lesser-included offense of trafficking in the second degree, receiving a life sentence.
- The State’s key witness was Trooper Brooks McGinnis, who stopped Zetina-Torres at a ruse checkpoint on I-70 and later found 488.74 grams of methamphetamine in the Nissan pickup he was driving.
- Maldonado accompanied Zetina-Torres; the truck was registered to Mardonio Benitez, and Benitez’s February 2010 arrest records surfaced in secondhand identity-related materials.
- A June–July 2011 discovery process revealed late disclosures: records custodian Harper, a fingerprint expert Rhodes, and Benitez-related documents were disclosed only shortly before trial, along with a fingerprint report linking Benitez to Zetina-Torres.
- Defense counsel was unable to locate a key Benitez attorney in time, hindering investigation into whether Zetina-Torres and Benitez were the same person and affecting strategic preparation.
- The court ultimately reversed and remanded due to the discovery violations, while acknowledging a need to address jeopardy concerns and noting that the defendant did receive a translator at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery violations and continuance denial | Zetina-Torres asserts Rule 25.03 violations and prejudice from late disclosures | State failed to disclose crucial identity and fingerprint evidence timely | Reversible error; trial court abused discretion; remand for new proceedings |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree trafficking | State failed to prove Zetina-Torres knew of the meth or aided in trafficking | Evidence showed ownership, conduct, and circumstantial proof of knowledge | Evidence sufficient; conviction upheld on this point (subject to remand for discovery issues) |
| Admissibility of hearsay from a trooper | State's hearsay objections should be considered valid | Hearsay statements by Maldonado were improperly admitted | Not addressed on the merits due to remand on discovery issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 356 S.W.3d 774 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011) (clarifies discovery sanctions and abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1992) (frames fundamental unfairness and need for fair discovery)
- State v. Harrington, 534 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. banc 1976) (emphasizes that a continuance may be required to cure discovery prejudice)
- State v. Parsons, 152 S.W.3d 898 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (illustrates circumstances where mere possession or access supports inference of guilt)