733 S.W.2d 779 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1987
Kenneth Johnson appeals from his jury conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, a violation of § 195.020, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises three points on appeal. First, he alleges error due to the admission of testimony that police investigations and prior arrests had been made in the area where appellant was arrested and that the arresting officers recognized appellant. Next, appellant claims that it was error not to sever a portion of his voluntary statement to police that referred to his prior arrest for heroin possession. Finally, he maintains that he was denied due process and should be re-sentenced because the indictment did not include the particular statute used by the trial court to impose sentence. Finding appellant's contentions to be without merit, we affirm.
The facts adduced at trial indicate that on the night of February 5, 1986, outside a liquor store at 1347 Academy in the City of St. Louis, police officers surveilled a group of five men. They observed a member of the group receive money from another individual and then saw appellant cross the street, pick up a vial from the ground, remove something, and deliver it to the individual. This sequence of events was repeated a second time with a different individual. The police approached the group and one detective seized the vial, which contained capsules later identified as heroin. Appellant was arrested and after being advised of his rights, he stated that he had previously been arrested for selling heroin on that corner, but that he had nothing to do with what the police had seized that night.
Appellant’s assertion that the officers’ testimony that they recognized him was evidence of prior criminal involvement is similarly unfounded. “It is well known that most police officers have a wide acquaintance among the citizenry in general and the fact that a person is known to a police officer does not necessarily convey the impression that he has a criminal record.” State v. Pitchford, 324 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Mo.1959); State v. Berry, 679 S.W.2d 868, 873, (Mo.App., E.D.1984). Appellant was not impermissibly or preju-dicially identified as a prior offender by the officers’ testimony. This point is denied.
Appellant next claims that the portion of his voluntary statement to police referring to his prior arrest for heroin possession should have been severed prior to its introduction at trial. According to Detective Fredericksen, appellant stated that he “had been arrested for selling heroin on that corner before but that he had nothing to do with what we had taken that night.” Appellant contends that this evidence im-permissibly referred to unrelated crimes. This point was not properly preserved for review; we examine for plain error. Rule 30.20.
It is axiomatic that evidence of other crimes is inadmissible unless it is logically relevant in that it tends to establish a defendant’s guilt for the crime with which he is charged. State v. Cheesebrew, 575 S.W.2d 218, 223 (Mo.App., E.D.1978). The determination of whether the relevance of the evidence outweighs any prejudice to the defendant is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. State v. Bannister, 680 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Mo. banc 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1009, 105 S.Ct. 1879, 85 L.Ed.2d 170 (1985).
This court has held that to obtain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance under § 195.020, RSMo, the State must prove that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the proscribed substance. State v. Harris, 673 S.W.2d 490, 492 (Mo.App., E.D.1984). Thus, the State here, had to prove not only that appellant possessed the bottle of heroin capsules, but also that he was aware of the presence and character of the substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. State v. Cheesebrew, 575 S.W.2d 218, 222 (Mo.App., E.D.1978). In the case at bar, appellant’s statement indicated his knowledge of the contents of the vial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant’s entire statement was logically relevant to the crime on trial and therefore admissible to show appellant’s knowledge and intent.
Even if the admission of the entire statement were error, it was harmless, for error which in a close case might call for reversal may be disregarded where the evidence of guilt is strong. State v. Hampton, 648 S.W.2d 162, 166 (Mo.App., E.D.1983). Three police detectives testified as to appellant’s specific activities in obtaining and delivering the capsules containing heroin to customers. Against such strong, eyewitness accounts, appellant cannot make any credible claim of prejudice from the admission of his statement. Point denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.