State v. Barber

Decision Date06 July 1982
Docket NumberNo. 62964,No. 2,62964,2
Citation635 S.W.2d 342
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John BARBER, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Claude Hanks, Creve Coeur, for appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Douglas Lind, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

SEILER, Judge.

John Barber was arrested, charged, and convicted of possession of controlled substances, Schedule II, in violation of § 195.020, RSMo 1978. Punishment was assessed at five years confinement. The case is here on transfer on defendant's application following a dismissal of his appeal by the court of appeals, southern district. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.

Defendant alleges three instances of error: 1) the state failed to make a submissible case for possession of controlled substances; 2) the warrantless search which procured the evidence violated defendant's fourth amendment rights; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury instructions pertaining to the possession of controlled substances. Because we find that the state did not make a submissible case for possession of controlled substances and reverse on this issue, we need not reach defendant's other two points.

In reviewing the record we accept as true all evidence tending to prove defendant guilty together with all reasonable inferences supportive of the verdict. State v. Brooks, 618 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Mo. banc 1981). Our function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine only whether there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable persons could have found defendant guilty as charged. State v. Kelly, 539 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Mo. banc 1976); State v. Johnson, 510 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo.App.1974).

To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance under § 195.020, the state must prove that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the proscribed substance. To meet this burden, conscious, intentional possession, either actual or constructive, must be established. State v. Burns, 457 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.1970); State v. Polk, 529 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.App.1975). The state must also show that the defendant was aware of the presence and nature of the substances in question. State v. Wiley, 522 S.W.2d 281, 292 (Mo. banc 1975). Both possession and knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. If actual possession has not been shown, "constructive possession will suffice when other facts buttress an inference of defendant's knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance." State v. West, 559 S.W.2d 282, 284 (Mo.App.1977). Exclusive control of the premises on which controlled substances are found raises an inference of possession and control of those substances. State v. Funk, 490 S.W.2d 354, 360 (Mo.App.1973). But if there is joint control of the premises some further evidence is necessary to connect the accused with the drugs. Id. at 361. The presence of large quantities of a controlled substance may buttress such an inference if consistent with the totality of circumstances. State v. Stewart, 542 S.W.2d 533, 538 (Mo.App.1976).

On January 28, 1979 at approximately 4:40 a. m., several officers from the Poplar Bluff police department entered a residence at 512 Karen Drive in Poplar Bluff, owned by the city and rented by Donald Ray Ward. The purpose of the police was to arrest Elizabeth Bistow Ward, who was wanted by another authority. Officer Donwell Clark was the first policeman to enter the building. He stationed himself in the living room of the apartment. One group of officers entered with him and passed on to a bedroom hallway while a second group used a separate entrance. In one bedroom, the officers found Donald Ward, Carol Ward, and her child; in the bathroom, they discovered Arthur Cronister and his wife; and in another bedroom, they found defendant John Barber, his wife, and Gregory Dorsey. In this particular bedroom there were quantities of pills and capsules, estimated at over a thousand, stacked in individual piles on the floor by color, size, and type. By the time officer Clark, who testified about the drugs, made his way down the hall and entered this bedroom, the three occupants were against the wall, guarded by a police officer. Drugs were found in other rooms on the premises, but not in the same quantities as in this bedroom. All of the individuals at the residence were arrested and read their rights collectively.

At trial the state presented three witnesses. The police officer who first entered the room where defendant was present did not testify. Officer Clark testified that he did not observe defendant Barber with pills in his pocket or on his person. He had no knowledge of whether the defendant resided at 512 Karen or how long he had been on the premises. The second witness was officer Alexander, the Poplar Bluff narcotics officer, who testified that when ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 cases
  • State v. Blake
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 25, 2021
    ...to require knowledge of both the presence of the substance and the general character of the substance. See, e.g. , State v. Barber , 635 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Mo. 1982) ; State v. Alexander , 471 A.2d 216, 218 (R.I. 1984) ; Clodfelter v. Commonwealth , 218 Va. 619, 622, 238 S.E.2d 820 (1977) ; W......
  • State v. Richards
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • July 10, 2009
    ...at 813; Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d at 836; State v. Abbott, 83 P.3d at 799; Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d at 386. 5. State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. 1982); Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d at 412. 6. Malone v. State, 217 S.W.3d at 813; Henderson v. State, 715 N.E.2d at 836; Sta......
  • State v. Carson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1997
    ...had no express culpable mental state, this Court interpreted the statute to require knowledge or conscious possession. See State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Mo. banc 1982); State v. Hayes, 563 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Mo. banc 1978); State v. Wiley, 522 S.W.2d 281, 292 (Mo. banc 1975); State v. B......
  • Dawkins v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1987
    ...character of the substance. See, e.g., State v. Alexander, 471 A.2d 216 (R.I.1984); Wise v. State, 654 P.2d 116 (Wyo.1982); State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.1982); Clodfelter v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 619, 238 S.E.2d 820 (1977); State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 376 A.2d 65 (1977); State v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 14.90 Control of Premises
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 14 Defenses
    • Invalid date
    ...other people are present in a room, the defendant cannot be held to be in exclusive possession of drugs in the room. State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342 (Mo. 1982). In State v. West, 559 S.W.2d 282 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977), the court held that there was no presumption that the owner of a car has kn......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT