State v. Brickley, 36012
| Decision Date | 11 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 36012,36012 |
| Citation | 521 S.W.2d 16 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth Eugene BRICKLEY, Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., K. Preston Dean, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Daniel M. Buescher, Pros. Atty., James R. Hartenbach, Asst. Pros. Atty., Union, for respondent.
Briegel & Kimme, Thomas J. Briegel, Union, for appellant.
Defendant Kenneth Eugene Brickley was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for possession of marijuana. On appeal, he contends the State failed to prove knowing possession and rendered evidence inadmissible by commingling it.
Defendant was arrested after a valid search of his house disclosed the presence of three bags of 'green vegetation,' identified as marijuana, in the kitchen an dining room, and two marijuana cigarette butts in the basement. Defendant occupied the upstairs portion of the house and his housemate occupied the basement. However, defendant testified he kept and practiced his musical instruments in the basement, and he added that both he and his housemate had the run of the other rooms in the house. Defendant admitted he saw the bags of green vegetative matter in the refrigerator a week before the search, but testified he had told his housemate to remove the bags or move out of the house, and added he was unaware of the bags' presence at the time of seizure. A frequent house guest of defendant's corroborated his testimony.
Defendant relies upon State v. McGee, 473 S.W.2d 686 (Mo.1971), in contending the State failed to prove knowing possession of marijuana. The McGee court reversed a possession conviction of a defendant who shared an apartment with others. Police found the apartment's occupants near a table covered with drugs and drug apparatus. They also found marijuana in some occupants' exclusively controlled bedrooms, but not in defendant's exclusively controlled bedroom. The court held a defendant's mere proximity to persons using drugs did not constitute proof of defendant's possession. With that holding we agree. However, the McGee case is not our case, since defendant Brickley had access to and did use the basement area of his housemate, and since both men used the kitchen and dining room as common areas.
Actual possession is not necessary to sustain a conviction; constructive possession will suffice where, as here, other facts buttress an inference of defendant's knowledge of the presence of drugs. One such incriminating fact is a defendant's access to an area in which drugs are found. 56 ALR3d 946 et seq....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pacchetti
...S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App.1974). An incriminating fact is defendant's access to the area in which the drugs were found. State v. Brickley, 521 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1975). The fact that defendant's wife also used the bedroom and had access to the marijuana does not destroy the inference of kn......
-
State v. West
...of the controlled substance. One such incriminating fact is a defendant's access to an area in which drugs are found. State v. Brickley, 521 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1975). Proximity of the controlled substance to the person who acknowledges ownership will permit a finding of possession which in t......
-
State v. Zimpher, KCD
...control of the premises) within the rule as stated in Funk, as approved and adopted in Wiley, supra. As was said in State v. Brickley, 521 S.W.2d 16, 17(3) (Mo.App.1975): "Actual possession is not necessary to sustain a conviction; constructive possession will suffice where, as here, other ......
-
State v. Allbaugh
...of premises in which the drugs are found are: (1) the defendant's "access to ... area[s] in which drugs are found," State v. Brickley, 521 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.Ct.App.1975); (2) whether the drugs are in "plain view," Carnes v. State, 480 N.E.2d 581, 586 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); and (3) the presence ......