Simpson v. Mo. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository
| Decision Date | 21 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 34639,SD 34639 |
| Citation | 522 S.W.3d 369 |
| Parties | Dominique Roshaud SIMPSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Missouri STATE HIGHWAY PATROL CRIMINAL RECORDS REPOSITORY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ROSS D. KEELING, Jefferson City, for Appellant.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol ("MSHP") appeals the trial court's judgment expunging Dominique Roshaud Simpson's ("Petitioner") arrest records relating to an alleged ordinance violation.1 See section 610.122. In two interrelated points, MSHP challenges the trial court's findings that (1) "[t]he arrest was based on false information" and (2) "[t]here is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense." Finding merit in MSHP's points, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.2
We will affirm a judgment resulting from a bench trial unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We leave all credibility determinations to the trial court, which is free to believe none, part, or all of the testimony of any witness. Maserang v. Crawford Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 211 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006).
On October 24, 2013, Petitioner filed his "PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT " of any records related to his January 7, 2012 arrest for "Possession of marijuana" ("the arrest"). MSHP filed an "ANSWER AND MOTION TO DISMISS " that asserted Petitioner was not entitled to relief. At the bench-trial of the petition, Petitioner testified about the arrest, and the arresting officer's police report was admitted into evidence as "State's Exhibit #1[.]" The uncontested evidence of what occurred during the arrest is as follows.
On January 7, 2012, in Joplin, Rob Green ("Green"),3 an acquaintance of Petitioner, brought marijuana ("the marijuana") into Petitioner's car. Petitioner and Green then smoked the marijuana. Ten-to-fifteen minutes later, an officer of the Joplin Police Department smelled the odor of marijuana, which became stronger as he approached Petitioner's parked car. The officer then discovered and detained Petitioner and Green (who were both sitting inside the car), informed them that he could smell marijuana, and asked where the marijuana was located. Acting on Green's response, the officer discovered and seized a "roach" located in the car's ash tray. Both Petitioner and Green admitted to the officer that they had smoked the marijuana. The officer then placed them under arrest for possession of marijuana.
Green ultimately pleaded guilty to possessing the marijuana. In lieu of the charge of marijuana possession, Petitioner's charge was amended, and he pleaded guilty to disturbing the peace. Petitioner does not have any other misdemeanor or felony convictions.
In its judgment granting the petition for expungement, the trial court made the following factual findings:
States [sic] exhibit #1 states that [Petitioner] smoked the marijuana. [Petitioner] never admitted in the arrest report that it was his marijuana. Testimony at trial was that Green pled guilty to the possession of marijuana charge. [Petitioner] testified at trial it was Green's marijuana, not his. Green pled guilty to the charge, the police record is absent as to [Petitioner] ever climing [sic] it was his marijuana, and [Petitioner] specifically denied it was his marijuana.
Based on those findings, the trial court concluded that Petitioner satisfied all of the section 610.122 requirements (including, as relevant here, that the arrest was based on false information and was without probable cause) and ordered that any and all records relating to the arrest be expunged. This appeal timely followed.
For ease of analysis, we will address collectively MSHP's interrelated points. Point 1 claims the trial court's finding that "[t]he arrest was based on false information" was not supported by substantial evidence. MSHP argues that Petitioner "did not identify any false information material to his arrest." In support, MSHP points to the fact that Petitioner's testimony and State's Exhibit #1, recounting the circumstances of the arrest, were not inconsistent, and Petitioner admitted that State's Exhibit #1 was a " ‘fairly accurate description of the arrest.’ "
MSHP is correct in claiming that State's Exhibit #1 is consistent with Petitioner's testimony regarding the arrest. Nonetheless, an arresting officer's misunderstanding of the facts is not the sole means by which the "false information" requirement of section 610.122 may be satisfied. False information may also be established in situations where an officer misunderstands the law , i.e., "relies on a mistaken belief that a criminal law applies to conduct that is unquestionably not illegal." Doe v. St. Louis Cty. Police Dep't, 505 S.W.3d 450, 455 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). Whether the uncontested evidence of Petitioner's conduct amounted to marijuana possession (the offense for which he was arrested) is an issue we consider as we address MSHP's second point.
In Point 2, MSHP claims the trial court misapplied the law in finding that "[t]here is no probable cause, at the time of the action to expunge, to believe the individual committed the offense." MSHP argues the misapplication occurred when the trial court erroneously treated "ownership" of the marijuana as an element necessary to establish the offense of marijuana possession. We agree.
Petitioner claims he was arrested for "Possession of marijuana[.]" The petition does not identify the criminal statute or ordinance governing that offense, and Petitioner did not offer the charging document or any other evidence regarding the elements of that crime at trial.
In its brief, MSHP makes the following argument in support of its position on appeal:
" Section 195.010(32), RSMo, defines the terms ‘possessed’ or ‘possessing a controlled substance’ as ‘a person with the knowledge of the presence and illegal nature of a substance, has actual or constructive possession of the substance.’ " State v. McCleod , 186 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). "Actual possession of a controlled substance requires that a person ‘has the substance on his person or within easy reach and convenient control.’ " Id , at 444. Thus, [Petitioner]'s admission would, if true, establish that he was in possession of marijuana. A voluntary admission of guilt by the accused person can establish probable cause to believe the accused person committed the crime charged for. Sutton v. Mun. Ct. Div., Des...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Speir v. Speir (In re Speir), SD 35173
...for this failure, but it deprives us of the benefit of any argument she might have made. Simpson v. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository , 522 S.W.3d 369, 370 n.2 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017).5 Here, the relevant "trial" within the meaning of Rule 51.05(b) was the hearing on the merits o......
-
State v. Floyd
...because ownership is not an element of the crime of possession of a controlled substance. Simpson v. State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository , 522 S.W.3d 369, 373 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017). The only questions for the jury to determine were whether Defendant consciously and intentionally......